Document elcerrito_gov_doc_6f19c54c4b

June 2, 2014 City Council Meeting Agenda Item No. 6 Index Public Hearing: Project at 1715 Elm Street – Planned Development and Appeal Staff Report 1: Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Action to Approve a Planned Development Use Permit for a Development Located at 1715 Elm Street Staff Report 2: Consideration of a General Plan Amendment, Development Agreement, and the creation of a Planned Development District including a Zoning Map Amendment to allow for the construction of 14 new dwelling units, the relocation of 1 existing dwelling unit to be retained on site; 15 parking spaces; 1,548 square feet of common open space on property located at 1715 Elm Street 1. Resolution approving the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project; Exhibit A. Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 2. Resolution approving a General Plan Amendment; 3. Ordinance to approve Planned Development District for the Project property and Amendment to the Zoning Map Exhibit A: Site Plan 4. Resolution denying an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of a Planned Development Use Permit for the Project. 5. Ordinance to approve a Development Agreement. Exhibit A: Development Agreement 6. General Plan Map 7. Plan Set 8. Revised Landscape Plan 9. March 19, 2014 Staff Report 10. April 16, 2104 Staff Report, Resolutions and Shadow Study 11. May 21, Staff Report and Resolution ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 2 12. Letter of Appeal 13. Vicinity Map 14. Resource Page with links to studies regarding transit oriented development 15. Correspondence ---PAGE BREAK--- AGENDA BILL Agenda Item No. 6 Staff Report 1 Date: June 2, 2014 To: El Cerrito City Council From: Margaret Development Services Manager Melanie Mintz, Interim Community Development Director Subject: Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Action to Approve a Planned Development Use Permit for Development Located at 1715 Elm Street. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council hold a single, consolidated public hearing to consider both this appeal and other actions necessary to approve the proposed development at 1715 Elm Street (the “Project”). The other Project approvals are discussed in a separate staff report for ease of consideration by the Council. Staff additionally recommends that, at the conclusion of the consolidated public hearing, the City Council: 1. Adopt a resolution approving the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project; 2. Adopt a resolution approving a General Plan Amendment; 3. Waive first reading and introduce an ordinance to approve Planned Development Zoning for the Project property and amend the Zoning Map accordingly; 4. Adopt a resolution denying an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of a Planned Development Use Permit for the Project; and 5. Waive first reading and introduce an ordinance to approve a Development Agreement. BACKGROUND The Project is proposing to construct a new three story building, 42 feet in height. Two stories of the proposed building are for dwelling units, with the required fifteen parking spaces tucked underneath. The new building would include 14 new one and two bedroom dwelling units. The Project also proposes to restore and relocate the existing, historic, single-family detached house on-site to provide a fifteenth dwelling unit. Finally, the Project is proposing to retain the creek in place, thereby protecting the 115 foot long water course which is a tributary of Baxter Creek, utilize it as an amenity for the overall site and plant native and riparian vegetation. On November 6, 2013, the Design Review Board conducted Preliminary Conceptual Review on the Project. The Board’s comments were generally favorable towards the ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6 Staff Report 1 Page 2 Project, both in terms of the architectural details and the extensive predominantly native and drought-tolerant landscaping plan. They suggested minor modifications to the front entry of the main building and front gate. These changes were incorporated by the applicant into the Project proposal. On March 19, 2014, the Planning Commission held a study session of the Project. During the study session comments were received by staff from members of the public and the Planning Commission. The main concerns stated included the proposed density, height, traffic and parking impacts. There were also concerns listed regarding the potential construction impacts on the neighborhood, particularly on the adjacent preschool. Staff met with representatives of the preschool and a representative of the development team on April 2, 2014. Both parties made a good faith effort to identify items of concern and possible resolutions. These efforts were included as Conditions of Approval in the subsequent staff report presented at the April 16 Planning Commission meeting. On April 16, 2014 the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the Planned Development Use Permit. The Planning Commission approved the Planned Development Use Permit with a vote of four to two. The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by a group of residents (Howdy Goudey, Robin Mitchell, Jason Hasley, Keystone Montessori School I Linda Shehabi, Dan and Henia Pines, and Julia Lucia). This staff report lists the points of the appeal and the staff response for each issue. Staff supports the Project for the reasons expressed in the staff report to the Planning Commission and for the reasons expressed below. Staff therefore recommends denying the appeal and approving the Project, which includes taking the additional actions outlined in the separate staff report prepared for the Project. This Project has been the subject of three public hearings before the Planning Commission. Each hearing’s staff report contained a detailed analysis of different aspects of the Project. These staff reports and resolutions are attached to this document to use as a reference. CONTEXT OF THE APPEAL Procedure for Appeals Pursuant to Section 19.39.040.D, appeals of the Planning Commission are considered by the City Council. Pursuant to Section 19.39.040.F, the City Council may: 1) Conduct a public hearing; or 2) Remand the matter back to the Planning Commission to cure a deficiency in the record or the proceedings. In conducting a public hearing on the appeal, the City Council must use the same standards of review required for the original decision (Section 19.39.050). In addition, appeals are “de novo” which means the City Council may consider new evidence not presented during the original public hearing and may make findings different from those made by the Planning Commission. The standard for review of these appeals is whether the City Council can make the findings required for Plan Development Use Permit pursuant to Section 19.14.040.B.2. The Council may rely on ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6 Staff Report 1 Page 3 the Planning Commission’s findings, but must decide for itself if those findings are appropriate. If the Council finds that it agrees with the Planning Commission’s findings or that it can make alternate findings of approval, then the Council should deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision to approve Planned Development Use Permit for the Project. If the Council determines that they cannot make the Planned Development Use Permit findings in Section 19.14.040.B2, it should grant the appeal and overturn the Planning Commission’s Planned Development Use Permit approval. The required Planned Development Use Permit findings are found in Section 19.14.040.B.2 and are listed below in the Planning Commission Action section, below. El Cerrito General Plan All development projects are reviewed in the context of the goals of the El Cerrito General Plan. The General Plan designation for this site is High Density Residential (21 to 35 dwelling units/net acre) This designation is described as follows: The High Density residential land use category is intended to provide opportunities for multiple-family residential development in a well-designed environment. The range is intended to be located in areas where higher traffic volumes and buildings can be accommodated. These developments should be located outside of single-family residential communities, where services and transportation systems are adequate to serve the increased densities. The General Plan Map illustrates the transition in the residential land uses in this area (Attachment The High Density designation runs in a band immediately adjacent to the Commercial/Mixed Use designation along San Pablo Avenue. It is flanked in most areas by thinner band of Medium Density designation. In the vicinity of the Project, from Hill on the north, to Elm on the east, Blake on the south and the BART tracks on the west, the entire section of the city is designated High Density Residential. South of Blake, the area transitions to Medium and Low Density Residential. One of the primary reasons for the higher intensity designation in the area in which the Project site is located is tied to its transit and transportation-rich surroundings. In addition to the Del Norte BART station and San Pablo Avenue where AC Transit service is frequent, staff notes the immediate adjacency of Hill Street and Richmond Avenue (Arterial Streets) as well as the Ohlone Greenway for bike and pedestrian travel. The General Plan has several policies that provide guidance towards this discussion. Many of these policies are listed below, followed by facts of the Project. Related policies are grouped and followed by a summary of relevant facts and analysis. Land Use 5.1 BART Station Areas. Encourage higher densities and a mix of uses near the city’s two BART stations to take advantage of the transit opportunities they provide. This Project is within a quarter mile of Del Norte BART station. ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6 Staff Report 1 Page 4 Community Design 5.2 Planned Developments. Encourage planned development projects and other techniques that cluster developments to create and preserve open spaces, views, and other amenities. The Project utilizes these planned development techniques in order to provide a higher amount of open space and preserve historic features and the existing creek. Community Design 3.5 Creek Preservation. Where possible, preserve and restore natural drainage ways as parts of the storm drainage system, coordinating with recreational and trail use. The 115 foot long tributary of the Baxter Creek is being preserved on site. All appropriate permits from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Army Corps of Engineers and Department of Fish and Wildlife, as required, will be secured for work near the creek before the issuance of any building or grading permit. The applicant has prepared a Riparian Enhancement Plan as a part of its Joint Aquatic Resource Permit Application (JARPA) to the resource agencies. R2.1: Historic Preservation. Ensure that the remodeling and renovation of historic structures respects the character of the structure and its setting; and R2.5: Public Awareness. Promote public awareness of significant resources through educational programs, tours, markers, and other appropriate measures. The Project is preserving the historical dwelling unit on site and restoring the front façade to the Department of Interior Standards. The new proposed construction is being designed in a way that it is architecturally compatible with the historic dwelling. In addition, the applicant is funding two historical plaques that will inform visitors to the site of the Rodoni home and the historic context of the neighborhood’s “Little Italy”. The open space, plantings and creek in front of and adjacent to the historic structure are incorporated to respect the character of the structure and its setting. Land Use 1.2: Multifamily Neighborhoods. Ensure that new development in multifamily neighborhoods supports, rather than detracts from the existing residential character of the area; and Land Use 1.5: Suitable Housing. Promote suitably located housing and services for all age groups within the city; and Land Use 1.6: Variety of Housing Types. Encourage diverse housing types, such as live- work units, studio spaces, townhouses, co-housing, congregate care, and garden apartments. The Project, along with the mitigations and conditions that staff has proposed, is found to be supportive and compatible to the residential character of its surrounding multifamily residential neighborhood. It will retain and partially restore the vacant historic building and add fourteen additional one and two bedroom condominiums to the ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6 Staff Report 1 Page 5 property. In addition to retaining the creek, the Project is adding considerable landscaping, including orchard- type trees and California native trees, shrubs and groundcover. The Project will also provide a turf area for passive recreation in the front of the site and raised planting beds for residents. Finally, due to its proximity to the many services on the San Pablo Avenue corridor, the Project provides residents with the option to rely on transit and non-motorized transportation options. Community Design 1.3: High-Quality Design. Encourage higher-quality design through the use of well-crafted and maintained buildings and landscaping, use of higher-quality building materials, and attention to the design and execution of building details and amenities in both public and private projects, and Community Design 1.9: Building Design. A variety of attractive images will be achieved by encouraging a variety of building styles and designs, within a unifying context of consistent “pedestrian” scale along streets and compatibility among neighboring land uses, and Community Design 4.2: Building Articulation. Ensure that buildings are well articulated. Avoid large unarticulated shapes in building design. Ensure that building designs include varied building facades, rooflines, and building heights to create more interesting and differentiated building forms and shapes. Encourage human scale detail in architectural design. Do not allow unarticulated blank walls or unbroken series of garage doors on the facades of buildings facing the street or the Ohlone Greenway, and Community Design 5.1: Design Review Process. Continue design review and approval process for all new development, changes, additions, and modifications of existing buildings (except for single-family homes on existing lots). The architecture of the proposed fourteen unit structure has been designed to reflect but not mimic the existing historic single family dwelling. The roof pitch of the dormers is consistent with the roof pitch of the historic single family dwelling, and while the materials are not the same, the appearance of the materials as well as their colors appear to be consistent with the existing main building. The proposed building interacts with Elm Street by providing an interesting variation in form and mass (as opposed to monolithic). The elevations include vertical architectural elements and horizontal color bands. Balconies and trellises have been added to soften the interface with the street. As noted previously, this Project received positive feedback for the Design Review Board at its conceptual review in November, 2013. El Cerrito Zoning Ordinance The current zoning designation for the subject property is Multi-family Residential (RM). This district is described in the Zoning Ordinance as follows: To provide opportunities for multi-family residential development in a well- designed environment at a density of 21 to 35 dwelling units per net acre. ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6 Staff Report 1 Page 6 Additional density can be achieved through the approval of density bonuses and other incentives. The RM district is intended to be located in areas where higher traffic volumes and buildings can be accommodated. These developments should be located outside of single-family residential communities, and where services and transportation systems are adequate to serve the increased densities. The RM district is further intended to achieve design compatibility between new multi-family development and surrounding less intensive residential neighborhoods by establishing physical development standards and performance standards. While it is the Planned Development Use Permit that has been appealed, the larger context of Planned Developments is helpful to understand when considering the Project. A Planned Development requires a rezoning, in terms of both text and map. It creates a new zoning designation, specifically for the subject property. The purpose is to provide for “detailed review of development that warrants special review and deviations from the existing development standards. It is also intended to provide opportunities for creative development approaches and standards that will achieve superior community design, environmental preservation and public benefit, in comparison to subdivision and development under district regulations”. To that end, consideration of the Project throughout the report is completed in comparison to the underlying RM Zone. It is noted however, that this entitlement process is selected by city staff to use when a Project is found to offer the potential for overarching public benefit, and would not been considered if such potential did not exist. Project Description The Project is proposing to construct a new three story building, 42 feet in height. Two stories of the proposed building are for dwelling units, with the required fifteen parking spaces tucked underneath. The new building would include 14 new one and two bedroom dwelling units. The Project also proposes to restore and relocate the existing, historic, single-family detached house on-site to provide a fifteenth dwelling unit. Finally, the Project is proposing to retain the creek in place, thereby protecting the 115 foot long water course which is a tributary of Baxter Creek, utilize it as an amenity for the overall site and plant native and riparian vegetation. Attachment 3 and 4. Site Description The Project site is a fairly level, rectangular 0.42-acre lot located at 1715 Elm Street. The site slopes from a high point along the Elm Street frontage to the western boundary, representing a gentle 3 percent slope across the property. The Project site currently contains four buildings: the main house, garage, well house, and shed, as well as other features characteristic of rural agricultural properties. The house was constructed in 1897 by Ambrose Rodoni and, based on information from the Contra Costa County Assessor; it is the third-oldest building in El Cerrito. An open, rock-lined creek runs east–west across the site along the southern edge of the property approximately 20 feet from the house. The channel is approximately 4 feet deep and continues westerly onto the adjacent property in an open box culvert. The channel conveys stormwater runoff from upstream properties to the east. ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6 Staff Report 1 Page 7 Planning Commission Action On April 16, 2014, the Planning Commission received the staff report, opened the public hearing and listened to the presentation by the applicant’s development team. They then listened to the comments from the members of the public. The applicant offered a brief rebuttal, the Chair closed the public hearing and the Commission discussed the many aspects of the Project. The Planning Commission then found in favor of the Planned Development Use Permit, making the following findings: The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed development will be harmonious and compatible with and will not adversely affect the livability or appropriate development of abutting properties and the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed residential Project will be a transit oriented development (TOD) with good urban design. It will add 14 new dwelling units to the neighborhood while preserving a historic structure and retaining the existing creek. It will not unduly shade surrounding dwellings or create unacceptable traffic or parking impacts; and as conditioned it will not adversely affect the livability of the abutting properties or neighborhood. The location and design of the proposal will provide a convenient and functional living, working, shopping, or civic environment that will be an attractive amenity for the City. The location and design of the Project will provide a functional living environment that has good urban design. With the required vehicle parking tucked under the building, daylighted creek and landscaped area and clear sightlines to the restored historic building, it will be an attractive amenity for the City. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of the district where it is located and conforms in all significant respects with the El Cerrito General Plan and with any other applicable plan adopted by the City Council. The location and design of the Project will provide a functional living environment that has good urban design. With the required vehicle parking tucked under the building, daylighted creek and landscaped area and clear sightlines to the restored historic building, it will be an attractive amenity for the City. The Project is consistent with the purposes of the district and conforms in all significant respects with the General Plan as conditioned. It consists of high density multifamily development that utilizes good urban design principles including reduced parking requirements, parking concealed under the new building, and a mix of unit types. It also preserves and partially restores an important historic resource and protects an existing creek by including it within its landscaped area. The Project will implement the following General Plan policies: LU1.3: Quality of Development, LU1.5: Suitable Housing, LU1.6: Various Housing Types, LU1.7: Maximum Density, LU5.5: Pedestrians, Bicycles, and Access, LU6.4: Water Conservation, CD1.2: Design Concept, CD1.3: High-Quality Design, CD1.5: Landmarks Preservation, CD 1.9: Building ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6 Staff Report 1 Page 8 Design, CD3.3: Site Landscaping, CD4.2: Building Articulation, CD5.1: Design Review Process and R2.2: Historic Preservation. Development within the -PD district is demonstratively superior to the development that could occur under the standards applicable to the underlying base district, and will achieve superior community design, environmental preservation and/or substantial public benefit. In making this determination, the following factors shall be considered: a. Appropriateness of the use(s) at the proposed location. The proposed residential Project will be a transit oriented development (TOD) located within 800 feet of a BART station (1,400 feet by foot). It will add 14 new dwelling units while preserving a historic dwelling and retain an existing creek. b. The mix of uses, housing types, and housing price levels. The proposed Project offers a range of attached and detached dwellings on site. In the new construction is includes both one bedroom and two bedroom housing unit styles. All units’ prices will be set by the market. It is expected that the prices will reflect the different unit sizes. c. Provision of units affordable to persons and families of low and moderate income or to lower income households. While this is an important consideration, there was no feasible way to include a mandate to offer these units at an affordable price to persons and families of low and moderate income or lower income homes as defined by the State of California. d. Provision of infrastructure improvements. The existing infrastructure is sufficient to serve the proposed development as proposed. e. Provision of open space. While requiring relief from some development standards of the RM zone, it exceeds the zone requirements for both common area and private open space and allows for ten percent less lot coverage than could have been allowed in this district. f. Compatibility of uses within the development area. The use of the development area is exclusively residential. g. Quality of design, and adequacy of light and air to the interior spaces of the buildings. ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6 Staff Report 1 Page 9 The design of the new construction has been designed to allow acceptable levels of light and air into the interior spaces of the building. As conditioned, it shall meet or exceed all requirements of the California Building Code. In addition, the distance between the relocated historic building and the adjacent preschool is approximately 13 feet. h. Overall contribution to the enhancement of neighborhood character and the environment of El Cerrito in the long term. This Project will contribute to the enhancement of the neighborhood character and the environment of El Cerrito in the long term in that it represents a balance of many of El Cerrito’s core values. It incorporates transit oriented development and good urban design with successful historic preservation and stewardship of an existing creek. i. Creativity in design and use of land. The Project is proposing to provide 14 new one and two bedroom dwelling units on a 0.42 acre site that is designated in the General Plan for high density. It also proposes to restore and relocate the existing historic single-family detached house on site to provide a fifteenth living unit and preserving an important historic resource. Finally, the Project is proposing to keep the creek in place, thereby protecting the 115 foot long water course which is a tributary of the Baxter Creek and utilizing it as an amenity to the overall site. The motion was made by Commissioner Iswalt, second by Commissioner Hansen: It passed four votes to two. One member was absent. Appeal The appellant’s letter of appeal dated April 28, 2014 articulated over twelve reasons for filing the appeal. Staff has summarized each of these concerns and responded to each one below. The appeal letter is included as Attachment 8 for the City Council’s review. It is noted that staff did not address the last two points of the appeal letter as they did not apply to Planning Commission action, but rather to the appellants’ opinion of staff and the Commission’s efforts that were included for context. 1. Number of Variances. The appellants state that the number of variances that the developer is seeking should give pause to the leadership of El Cerrito and presents a “huge red flag” that this project is not in line with the City’s values and intentions for growth. Staff Response: The applicant is not requesting variances from the Multi-family Residential Zone. He is requesting the approval of a Planned Development. These two processes are quite different. The purpose of a Planned Development is to allow the city to consider a new specialized zone designation in return for overarching public benefit. ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6 Staff Report 1 Page 10 The applicant is not requesting variances but rather defining the specific development requirements needed to construct the Project. These new development standards allow for the Project to be built on the site. In return for considering a Planned Development approach, the City can gain fourteen new units near Del Norte BART, the retention (and partial restoration) of the historic dwelling located on site as well as retention and enhancement of the creek through the extensive planting program proposed. If the Project did not offer these benefits and the applicant wanted to proceed, he would have had no choice but to apply for a series of variances. 2. Site size and density. The appellants state that the new fourteen unit building is actually much denser than represented in the report. They define the proposed density as the number of dwelling units divided by the foot print of the new building. They conclude that the actual density is 73.6 dwelling units per acre. Staff Response: The measurement of density (dwelling units per acre) is a standardized method of measurement in land use planning. To identify a Project’s density, the proposed number of dwelling units is divided by the acreage of the entire site. The subject property is 18,465 feet or 0.42 acres. The total number of dwelling units proposed for the site is fifteen. Therefore, the proposed density is 35.7 dwelling units per acre. 3. Height and neighborhood quality. The appellants state that the proposed 42-foot structure is too tall for the existing residential neighborhood and would severely diminish the visual quality, livability, and human scale of the street. They note that the immediate vicinity, though zoned RM, consists of only one- and two-story structures, the majority of which are single-family homes. They note that Elm Street has mostly 12-foot-high houses and duplexes, and a couple of 20- to 24-foot structures. Staff Response: The neighborhood is more than single family dwellings and duplexes; and it encompasses more than the streetscape along Elm. It also includes three and four story multifamily buildings found along Liberty Street, many of which are also located in the same block, zoning district and General Plan designation as the subject property. The neighborhood also includes Summit K2, a 2-story public charter school, and the 2- story preschool school immediately adjacent to the Project site. The table below illustrates some of the taller existing structures in the vicinity. Attachment 9 shows the vicinity of the Project with these addresses noted. ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6 Staff Report 1 Page 11 Address No. of Units Lot Size (sq. ft.) No. of Stories Density 1715 Elm Street (Proposed Project) 15 18,468 3 35.7 du/ac 1749 Elm Street 5 9,225 2 23 du/ac 1715 Liberty St. 3 6,250 3 20 du/ac 1725 Liberty St. 10 12,500 2 (tuck under prk.) 32 du/ac 1740 - 1750 Liberty St. 16 23,136 3 30 du/ac 1751 Liberty St. 20 21,780 3 40 du/ac 1708 Lexington Ave. 13 13,000 3 33 du/ac This is a diverse neighborhood with many different uses, densities and heights that are compatible with the proposed Project. In terms of scale, the proposed building interacts with Elm Street by providing an interesting variation in form and mass along the Elm Street façade (as opposed to monolithic). The exterior elevations include the addition of vertical architectural elements and horizontal color bands. Balconies and trellises have been added to soften the interface with the street. One of the dwelling units on the ground floor is turned so to face the street, adding glazing and design details along the Elm Street side of the building. Landscaping also adds to the interface between the Project site and the street. The main common open space, located directly in front of the restored historic structure features a turf oval surrounded by a permeable concrete walk. This is proposed to be a passive recreation area with places to sit along with outdoor amenities like BBQ equipment. Plantings further soften this area; which include accent trees and orchard trees as well as shrubs. North of this larger area, there is another area that is proposed to include raised planting beds, accent trees and decomposed granite walking paths. All of these amenities will encourage residents to spend time in the front yard area along the Elm Street corridor. ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6 Staff Report 1 Page 12 4. Consistency with the (RM) Multifamily Zoning District. The appellants cite an excerpt from the Zoning Ordinance (19.06.010 Purpose): "The specific purposes of residential districts (including RM) are to: …Preserve, protect, and enhance appropriately located areas for residential land use, consistent with the City's General Plan. Prohibit incompatible uses. Preserve and enhance the character of existing residential neighborhoods by limiting encroachment of new buildings and activities that are out of scale and character with the surrounding uses." They go on to state that the Project height does not "preserve or enhance the character of (the) existing residential neighborhood" and does not "limit the encroachment of new buildings and activities that are out of scale and character with the surrounding uses." Staff Response: This excerpt is misleading. The full version of the purpose of the RM zone as stated in the municipal code states: “To provide opportunities for multi-family residential development in a well-designed environment at a density of 21 to 35 dwelling units per net acre. Additional density can be achieved through the approval of density bonuses and other incentives. The RM district is intended to be located in areas where higher traffic volumes and buildings can be accommodated. These developments should be located outside of single-family residential communities, and where services and transportation systems are adequate to serve the increased densities. The RM district is further intended to achieve design compatibility between new multi-family development and surrounding less intensive residential neighborhoods by establishing physical development standards and performance standards”. It identifies that the RM district is the correct designation for areas that have higher traffic volumes and buildings. It notes that those sort of denser projects should be located outside of the lower density single family residential communities to the east and closer to services and transportation systems are adequate to serve the increased densities. Finally, it instructs that the role of the RM zone to be partially as a buffer between the commercial zones along San Pablo Avenue and the less intensive residential neighborhoods to the east. Therefore, contrary to appellants’ assertions, the RM zone is the appropriate location for development with the Project’s proposed density and height. The Council should remember when analyzing this issue, however, that the Project includes an application for PD zoning to create specific development criteria for the property. The proposed PD zoning regulations are based upon and compatible with the RM zoning requirements, but the application allows for some deviation from the RM zoning regulations by applying PD zoning specific to the site. 5. Zoning Transitions and Zoning Intensions of General Plan Appellants assert that because the Project is on the border of the RD zoning district (duplex residential), which specifies 11-20 units per acre zoning, it is the neighboring ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6 Staff Report 1 Page 13 RD zone and the adjoining RS (single family) zone that set the character of the neighborhood in the area east of Elm Street. Based upon that characterization of the neighborhood, appellants believe that the density of the Project should be closer to 20 units/acre or lower when considering setbacks to protect the creek and historic structure. Staff Response: As stated in an earlier response, this neighborhood is diverse in terms of uses, heights and densities. There is no planning policy that mandates new developments to decrease in height or density simply due to their proximity to a General Plan designation border. The Project is found to be contextually compatible with its surrounding community, especially to its west. There is also no policy in place that specifies lower density near the resources such as the creek or historic structure. The Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration found that with the included mitigations, no significant adverse impacts would occur to the either of these resources. The Project has also applied for and will be required to obtain permits from agencies (Army Corp of Engineers, Department of Fish and Wildlife, Regional Water Quality Control Board) responsible for considering the impacts on the creek, creek habitat and water quality. 6. Transit Oriented Development. Appellants state that, it is important for the Council to bear in mind that, although the Project property is close to the Del Norte BART station (0.4 miles on foot), it is not in the TOM zoning district (transit-oriented mixed use zoning) and does not qualify for special conditions associated with that zoning. Staff Response: Appellants misunderstand the transit oriented development (TOD) references in the report. As noted previously, the Project property is currently zoned RM, not TOM. However, it is considered transit oriented due to its provision of housing in proximity to the BART station. Additionally, the Project proposes PD zoning for the property, which would modify the base RM zoning regulations in recognition of the benefits of the Project, its unique features, and the preservation and partial restoration of an historic structure and creek enhancement. 7. Creek Setback Appellants state that the Project’s proposed creek setbacks of 4-6 feet from the top of the bank, as opposed to the 30-foot setbacks required by Chapter 19.12 of the Zoning Ordinance, will diminish the potential to restore the resource and are inconsistent with “modern stewardship of creeks.” Staff Response: The City of El Cerrito does have a strong commitment to the preservation and restoration of creeks. In the case of this Project, allowing for the reduction of the creek setbacks was considered and evaluated in terms of causing potential harm for the creek. Planned Development zoning allows the City to consider alternatives to the standard thirty foot setback as long as it can be shown that the alternative provides opportunities for superior community design, environmental preservation and public benefit. As noted in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, this creek is not rich in riparian habitat and does not have any signs of ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6 Staff Report 1 Page 14 aquatic life. These are the sort of conditions that could require a significant setback from the creek. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration notes that with mitigations there will be no significant adverse impact on the creek. In addition, the applicant has concurrently applied for a Joint Aquatic Resource Permit (JARPA) permit. This joint permit application is routed to the Department of Fish and Wildlife, The Army Corps of Engineers and the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board for their individual review. As of May 21, they have already received approval from the Department of Fish and Wildlife. No building or grading permits will be issued until and unless the other two agencies approve this Project. The Project design allows for the retention and enhancement of the creek and its environs and the preservation and partial restoration of the historic dwelling while allowing for fourteen new dwelling units to be added to a site within a quarter mile of Del Norte BART. As a result, the Project balances the values of the City of El Cerrito, as noted in the General Plan, the Climate Action Plan and the Strategic Plan. In contrast, strict application of the RM district zoning regulations would result in creek setbacks that, in the view of staff and the City’s professional consultants, are unnecessary to protect the creek while compromising the Project’s potential to provide transit-oriented housing, which is also one of the City’s values. 8. Historical Structure Appellants assert that the size of the Project’s new structure does not match the historic character of the historic building in terms of size and scale. Staff Response: The Department of Interior Standards recommends that new buildings that are built near historic buildings be designed to be compatible with the historic character of the historic building in terms of size, scale, design, material, color, and texture. This policy is not meant to prohibit new buildings that are taller or larger than the historic buildings that they are adjacent to on a site. The applicant has designed the new construction to meet the spirit of these recommendations, including a number of architectural features that reflect the style of the historic building. For example, a mansard roof with brown asphalt shingle roofing is used on both the new and the historic building and the pitch for of each roof is also very similar. The applicant is also using horizontal siding painted in neutral tones to support this goal. Although the new building will be considerably taller than the historic dwelling, they are set on as far apart as possible on the site. The turf open space serves to frame the historic dwelling from the Elm streetscape, setting it visually apart from the new construction. The Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration did note specific mitigations in response to this Project proposal, and concluded that, with the recommended mitigation measures, the new building would not have an adverse impact to the historic structure. 9. Environmental Hazards and Health Risks, Especially To Children Appellants note that the Project property is located next to property currently used by Keystone Montessori preschool, which serves 60+ children, ages 18-months to 6 years, and is staffed by 10+ adults, from 7:00am to 6:00pm every weekday. They assert that ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6 Staff Report 1 Page 15 the Project would “present numerous unknown environmental hazards and health risks to the children who attend this preschool” because the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration did not study the immediate and long-term impacts of potential exposure to environmentally hazardous substances during construction, especially with respect to children. Staff Response: Construction and demolition occur throughout the region. Inherent with these processes, there are a number of possible contaminants in the soil that could become airborne during grading and construction. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is the local and regional authority regarding air quality concerns. The BAAQMD has developed project-level thresholds of significance in order to provide a conservative indication of whether a proposed project could result in potentially significant air quality impacts. To meet the project-level threshold of significance for construction- and/or operational-related criteria air pollutant and precursor impacts, the proposed Project must emit no more than 54 pounds per day (lbs/day) of reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and/or PM2.5 and no more than 82 lbs/day of PM10. Operational: In the case of this Project, the Initial Study notes that the operational components that would impact air quality relate only to the motor vehicles that are associated with the site and it is noted that air impacts generated by this Project are well under the thresholds identified by BAAQMD. Construction-generated: These emissions are short term and of temporary duration, lasting only as long as construction activities occur, but have the potential to represent a significant air quality impact. The proposed Project would result in the temporary generation of emissions resulting from site grading, paving, motor vehicle exhaust associated with construction equipment and worker trips, the movement of construction equipment, and architectural coatings. Fugitive dust, the dominant source of PM10 and PM2.5 emissions, is generated when wheels or blades disturb surface materials. Uncontrolled dust from construction can become a nuisance and potential health hazard to those living and working nearby. Off-road construction equipment is often diesel- powered and can be a substantial source of NOx emissions, in addition to PM10 and PM2.5 emissions. Worker commute trips and architectural coatings are dominant sources of ROG emissions. Project Construction Emissions (Maximum) Pounds per Day Construction Phase ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5 CO Construction Activities 5.52 29.90 2.32 1.97 20.10 BAAQMD Significance Criteria 54 54 82 54 None Significant? No No No No N/A Source: Emissions modeled by PMC using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2013.2.2 computer program. Notes: CO = carbon monoxide. Proposed rehabilitation of existing single-family unit assumed to be completely reconstructed for conservative analysis. Building construction, site paving, and painting activities assumed to occur concurrently. ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6 Staff Report 1 Page 16 The Initial Study notes that this Project’s maximum daily emissions would total approximately 5.52 lbs/day of ROG, 29.90 lbs/day of NOx, 2.32 lbs/day of PM10, 1.97 lbs/day of PM2.5, and approximately 20.10 lbs/day of CO. Of course, actual daily emissions would vary from day to day and would be dependent on the specific activities conducted. Therefore, during construction of the proposed Project, emissions generated would not exceed the BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance for air pollutant emissions, which would be considered a less than significant impact. Of additional concern, older buildings also have the potential of containing asbestos and/or lead. There are standard precautions and mitigations for these risks which will be required by the BAAQMD and the California Building Code. These issues were discussed when staff met with representatives from the preschool and the development team. As a result of that discussion, a number of additional conditions of approval were included in the April Planning Commission report. These included steps to minimize air quality impacts during the construction process and to ensure that a survey of lead-based paint (LBP) and asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) shall be completed. And all identified ACMs and any loose or peeling LBP shall be abated. The appellants asked for air monitoring of the site throughout the construction process in April, as well. Staff contacted neighboring cities to see if they had any type of best practices regarding this issue. No city or county was found that had air monitoring in place during construction. 10. Parking, Traffic and Noise Impacts The appellants state that the traffic report used for the Project’s analysis was over four and one half years old. They feel that the applicant should have to demonstrate that there will be no adverse noise, parking or traffic impacts before the Project is allowed to move forward. Staff Response: There appears to be a misunderstanding as to who is responsible for the preparation of the Initial Study. The City of El Cerrito is the lead agency under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and is the party responsible for the environmental document that was prepared. The following is a brief response to each of the three issues, by topic: Traffic: The original traffic impact study (TIS) for this Project was created in 2009. At that time the Project consisted of 14 units. Kittelson & Associates, a private transportation consultant, hired by the City, reviewed the 2009 TIS in December of 2013 to determine whether the analysis adequately reflects conditions that would occur with the Project as currently proposed (15 units). Kittelson determined the baseline results from 2009 were still valid. They also found that the Project, compared to the project studied in the 2009 TIS, would result in 40 additional total daily trips and up to 5 additional peak-hour trips (total for AM and PM peak hours). While this is a notable increase, it is not enough to cause a decrease in the overall level of service (LOS) at the three key intersections, so no significant impact would result. ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6 Staff Report 1 Page 17 As stated in the General Plan, if an intersection is functioning at LOS D or above, it is considered acceptable. Table A shows the results of the existing LOS analysis for signalized and unsignalized intersections in the area of the Project. Data from three study intersections show current operations at acceptable levels of service during weekday AM and PM peak-hour time frames. Table B presents the results of the existing plus Project intersection LOS analysis from the 2009 study, which shows the proposed Project would result in no change to the peak-hour LOS and would have a minimal effect on delays. The addition of five vehicle trips during each peak hour would not reduce the level of service to below the City’s standard of LOS D (Kittelson, 2013). All of the study intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable levels of service during all peak-hour scenarios. TABLE A Intersection Existing Weekday AM Peak Hour Existing Weekday PM Peak Hour Delay LOS Delay LOS Signalized Elm Street/Hill Street/Key Boulevard 24.8 C 22.2 C AWSC Elm Street/Richmond Street/Blake Street 11.5 B 11.4 B Signalized Richmond Avenue/Potrero Avenue 13.9 B 13.6 B TABLE B Intersection Existing Plus Project Weekday AM Peak Hour Existing Plus Project Weekday PM Peak Hour Delay LOS Delay LOS Signalized Elm Street/Hill Street/Key Boulevard 24.8 C 22.3 C AWSC Elm Street/Richmond Street/Blake Street 11.6 B 11.4 B Signalized Richmond Avenue/Potrero Avenue 13.9 B 13.6 B The traffic study also looked ahead at the function of the intersections with all other known projects in operation. This includes the equivalent of the proposed Summit K2 Middle School. Cumulative plus project weekday and weekend PM peak-hour volumes were determined by adding the Project trip assignment to the cumulative volumes. The 2009 study found all of the study intersections would operate at acceptable levels of service during all peak-hour scenarios. The addition of five vehicle trips during each peak hour under cumulative conditions would not reduce the level of service to below the City’s standard of LOS D (Kittelson, 2013). To ensure a minimum amount of frustration during construction, the applicant shall be submitting a Traffic Control Plan for use during the construction phase of the Project. ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6 Staff Report 1 Page 18 The goal of this plan will be to ensure that the contractor responsible for the construction is made aware of all City restrictions and limitations on using certain local streets for construction traffic, proposed truck delivery and haul routes, parking arrangements for construction personnel, ingress and egress, noise, efforts to address street debris and dust control and proposed on-site staging and equipment/material storage areas. It will also include a requirement to schedule all major truck trips and deliveries to avoid peak hours (normally 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. to 6 Staff believes these also are the peak pick up and drop off hours of the preschool. Parking: The project proposes 15 new parking spaces. The site plan illustrates that the parking area is enclosed on the ground floor and screened with a gate. By placing the parking below the proposed building and not in a surface lot and by reducing the amount down from 21 to 15, the Project allows for much more efficient use of the site making the land available for the new housing, the creek and a considerable amount of open space, and the historic building. This style of parking tucked under the new construction is a preferred alternative with regard to urban design, which essentially hides the vehicles from public view, while accommodating them on site. In addition, staff believes that the close proximity of the Project site to the El Cerrito Del Norte BART station (located within a quarter mile), several bus lines, and commercial uses, will result in increased transit use and pedestrian activity that will reduce the demand for parking on site. As part of the work being completed in drafting the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan, staff has identified a number of studies that support a parking standard of one space per unit for Projects up to one-half mile away from a BART station. Please see link to recent studies included as Attachment 10. Visitors would be allowed to park on the public right of way if the Project’s parking lot was already full. This right is shared by all other residences in the area. Noise: The Project is proposed to be exclusively residential. No significant increase in the ambient noise of the neighborhood is expected as a result of this Project. Construction activities on the Project site will generate noise that could disturb adjacent residences. According to City Municipal Code Section 19.21.050, the goal for maximum outdoor noise levels in residential areas is an Ldn (day-night level) of 60 decibels (dB). Section 16.02.080(b) of the City’s Municipal Code limits the hours of work to between 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM Monday through Friday, and between 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM on Saturday. Construction work is prohibited on Sundays and holidays. These restrictions apply to any construction occurring within the city limits. The preschool asked the applicant to refrain from using tools and machinery from noon to 2:00pm to allow for nap time. The applicant did agree to try to limit noise by setting a lunch break from noon until 1:00pm. He also stated that he would agree to meetings between the person in charge of the construction and the personnel of the preschool at least once a month to ensure that communication between the two uses remains open. Staff added that the person in charge of the construction site should also be available to ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6 Staff Report 1 Page 19 other members of the public. Conditions of approval were included in the April report to ensure compliance with these standards. 11. Shading Analysis Appellants characterize the shading analysis performed as part of evaluating the Project as “limited and misleading,” and “too quick to dismiss the serious consequences of shading on neighboring properties.” Without any supporting evidence, they claim that the home to the north will lose several hours of direct sun on their south windows and roof every day for nearly half the year which would affect passive solar heat gain and result in diminished thermal comfort and increased heating energy use, costs and carbon emissions for the occupants. They also claim that Project shading on the roof of the house to north would make it not viable to install on-site renewable power generation with photovoltaic solar panels. Staff Response: Shade analysis is not required by the current zoning ordinance. Shadow studies were included in the Project analysis as a way to evaluate the overall impact of the proposed Project on its neighbors. The studies illustrated that only one of the surrounding dwellings would experience shade on its roof and windows at any time of the year as a result of the Project. There is some question as to how much direct sunlight the existing duplex experiences half of the year now, but assuming that the duplex to the north will experience additional shade, it would have some impact on the passive solar heat gain in the winter. The appellant’s line of thought concludes that this additional shading should be not allowed because of its possible result in increased carbon emissions. This is one issue that could be considered when reviewing this Project. However, this single issue of additional shade is not a significant environmental impact and needs to be considered against all that the Project does for the City and the climate, which staff believes is a net positive through locating additional residences in proximity to the BART station. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT An Initial Study and Mitigate Negative Declaration (MND) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) were approved by the Planning Commission at the April 16, 2014 meeting. Impacts identified in the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration as “Environmental Factors Potentially Affected” included: hazard and hazardous materials, utilities/service systems, cultural resources, hydrology/water quality, noise, air quality and geology. All factors are reduced to a less than significant level pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act with the implementation of mitigation measures. ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6 Staff Report 1 The Mitigation Monitoring Plan has been incorporated in the conditions of approval. Reviewed by: 4-:.ger-_ Attachments: 10 Resolution approving the Initial Study/Mitigated Nega~.ive Declaration for the Project; Exhibit A. Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 20 Resolution approving a General Plan Amendment; 30 Ordinance to approve Planned Development District for the Project property and Amendment to the Zoning Map Exhibit A: Site Plan 40 Resolution denying an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of a Planned Development Use Permit for the Project. 50 Ordinance to approve a Development Agreement. Exhibit A: Development Agreement 60 General Plan Map 70 Plan Set 80 Revised Landscape Plan 9 0 March 19, 2014 Staff Report 100 April 16, 2104 StaffReport, Resolutions and Shadow Study 110 May 21, Staff Report and Resolution 120 Letter of Appeal 13 0 Vicinity Map 140 Resource Page with links to studies regarding transit oriented development Page 20 ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6 Staff Report 1 Page 21 15. Correspondence ---PAGE BREAK--- AGENDA BILL Agenda Item No. 6 Staff Report 2 Date: June 2, 2014 To: El Cerrito City Council From: Margaret Development Services Manager Melanie Mintz, Interim Community Development Director Subject: City Council consideration of a General Plan Amendment, Development Agreement, and the creation of a Planned Development District including a Zoning Map Amendment to allow for the construction of 14 new dwelling units, the relocation of 1 existing dwelling unit to be retained on site; 15 parking spaces; 1,548 square feet of private open space, and 2,874 square feet of common open space on property located at 1715 Elm Street. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council hold a single, consolidated public hearing to consider both the actions necessary to approve the proposed development at 1715 Elm Street (the “Project”) and the related appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of the Planned Development Use Permit for the Project. The appeal is discussed in a separate staff report for ease of consideration by the Council. Staff additionally recommends that, at the conclusion of the consolidated public hearing, the City Council: 1. Adopt a resolution approving the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project; 2. Adopt a resolution approving a General Plan Amendment; 3. Waive first reading and introduce an ordinance to approve Planned Development Zoning for the Project property and amend the Zoning Map accordingly; 4. Adopt a resolution denying an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of a Planned Development Use Permit for the Project; and 5. Waive first reading and introduce and ordinance to approve a Development Agreement. BACKGROUND The Project is proposing to construct a new three story building, 42 feet in height. Two stories of the proposed building are for dwelling units, with the required fifteen parking spaces tucked underneath. The new building would include 14 new one and ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6 Staff Report 2 Page 2 two bedroom dwelling units. The Project also proposes to restore and relocate the existing, historic, single-family detached house on-site to provide a fifteenth dwelling unit. Finally, the Project is proposing to retain the creek in place, thereby protecting the 115 foot long water course which is a tributary of Baxter Creek, utilize it as an amenity for the overall site and plant native and riparian vegetation. To develop the Project as proposed, the applicant has applied for a General Plan Amendment to allow for more density than is currently allowed and Planned Development rezoning of the property to allow for development standards different from those that apply in the existing RM zoning district in which it is located and those the apply under the creek protection provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. In the City of El Cerrito, Planned Developments require both a legislative and quasi- judicial approval. This staff report analyzes the legislative component of the entitlement package, including the following components: General Plan Amendment, the creation of a Planned Development District including a Zoning Map Amendment, and a Development Agreement. Pursuant to Chapter 19.14 of the El Cerrito Municipal Code, the City Council is being asked to take an action on these entitlements. The purpose of a Planned Development is to allow the city to consider a new specialized zone designation in return for overarching public benefit. The applicant is not requesting variances but rather defining the specific development requirements needed to construct the Project. These new development standards allow for the Project to be built on the site. In return for considering a Planned Development approach, the City would gain fourteen new units (fifteen units total) near Del Norte BART, the retention and partial restoration of the historic dwelling located on site as well as retention and enhancement of the creek through the extensive planting program proposed. The other component of the Project’s entitlement package, the Planned Development Use permit, was approved by the Planning Commission on April 16, 2014. That decision has been appealed to the City Council, which is analyzed in the other staff report before the City Council, tonight. At the May 21, 2014 Planning Commission meeting, a majority of members of the Planning Commission voted against recommending the General Plan Amendment, PD rezoning, and development agreement, which must be approved by the City Council. By scheduling the hearing on the appeal of the Commission’s approval of the Planned Development Use Permit and the hearing on the other entitlements at the same meeting, the City Council and the community are able to analyze and consider the whole Project. Traditionally, staff writes City Council reports from the lens of the last body of decision. In this case, staff will attempt to write to reflect both recent actions of the Planning Commission, including the approval of the Planned Development Use Permit and the recommendation for denial of the General Plan Permit, Development Agreement, and the creation of a Planned Development District including a Zoning Map Amendment. ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6 Staff Report 2 Page 3 DISCUSSION The Project is proposing to provide fourteen new one- and two-bedroom dwelling units on a 0.42 acre site that is designated in the General Plan for high density, multifamily residential uses. It also proposes to partially restore and relocate the existing, historic single-family detached house on site to provide a fifteenth living unit and preserve an important historic resource. Finally, the project is proposing to keep the existing creek in place, thereby preserving the 115 foot long water course which is a tributary of Baxter Creek and utilize it as an amenity for the overall site. The proposed condominium structure would be 14,311 square feet, with eleven two-bedroom units (approximately 1,064 sq ft each) and three one bedroom units. (869 square feet each). Two of these units will be accessible without stoops from the ground floor. The Project is also adding a considerable amount of landscaping, including orchard-type trees and California native trees, shrubs and groundcover. The Project will also provide a turf area for passive recreation in the front of the site and raised planting beds for residents. Bioswales and permeable surfaces are also utilized for the treatment of stormwater on- site. (Attachment Below, staff has listed each of the entitlements for the Council members review and consideration. 1) General Plan Amendment: The maximum density allowed within the High Density Residential designation is 35 units per acre for market rate housing. The project has a proposed density of 35.7 dwelling units per acre. The applicant has stated that they need the additional 0.7 density (or essentially the 15th unit) in order to make the project financially viable given the amount of land needed in order to preserve and enhance the creek and historic house. Staff evaluated the request which is manifested as the fourteenth dwelling by reviewing the General Plan designation’s goals and the Zoning District’s purpose, the information included in the Initial Study, and by analyzing the surrounding neighborhood. The General Plan designation for this site is High Density Residential (21 to 35 dwelling units/net acre). This designation is described as follows: The High Density residential land use category is intended to provide opportunities for multiple-family residential development in a well-designed environment. The range is intended to be located in areas where higher traffic volumes and buildings can be accommodated. These developments should be located outside of single-family residential communities, where services and transportation systems are adequate to serve the increased densities. The General Plan Map illustrates the transition in the residential land uses in this area (Attachment The High Density designation runs in a band immediately adjacent to the Commercial/Mixed Use designation along San Pablo Avenue. It is flanked in most areas by thinner band of Medium Density designation. In the vicinity of the project, ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6 Staff Report 2 Page 4 from Hill on the north, to Elm on the east, Blake on the south and the BART tracks on the west, the entire section of the city is High Density Residential. South of Blake, the area transitions down to Medium and Low Density Residential. One of the primary reasons for the higher intensity designation in this area is tied to its transit-and- transportation rich surroundings. In addition to the Del Norte BART station and the buses that run along San Pablo Avenue, staff notes the immediate adjacency of Hill Street and Richmond Avenue (Arterial Streets) as well as the Ohlone Greenway for bike and pedestrian travel. The Project is consistent with and furthers the following existing General Plan policies, as explained in the text following each policy. A minor amendment to allow for a slight increase in the currently permitted density is necessary for the Project to proceed as proposed. Land Use 5.1 BART Station Areas. Encourage higher densities and a mix of uses near the city’s two BART stations to take advantage of the transit opportunities they provide. This project is within a quarter mile of the Del Norte BART station. Community Design 5.2 Planned Developments. Encourage planned development projects and other techniques that cluster developments to create and preserve open spaces, views, and other amenities. The Project utilizes the planned development technique in order to preserve open space, historic features and the existing creek. It also exceeds the underlying zone’s requirements for both common area and private open space and allows for ten percent less lot coverage than could have been allowed in this district. Community Design 3.5 Creek Preservation. Where possible, preserve and restore natural drainage ways as parts of the storm drainage system, coordinating with recreational and trail use. Resource 1.9 Development near Creeks. For development adjacent to creeks and major drainages, provide adequate building setbacks from creek banks, provision of access easements for creek maintenance purposes and for public access to creekside amenities, and creek improvements such as bank stabilization. Also protect riparian vegetation outside the setback. The 115 foot long tributary of the Baxter Creek is being preserved on site. All appropriate permits will be secured for work near the creek before the issuance of any building or grading permit. As part of the applicant’s Joint Aquatic Resource Permit Application (JARPA) to the Department of Fish and Wildlife, Army Corps of Engineers and Regional Water Quality Control Board, a Riparian Enhancement Plan has been developed. ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6 Staff Report 2 Page 5 Resource 2.1: Historic Preservation. Ensure that the remodeling and renovation of historic structures respects the character of the structure and its setting. Resource 2.5: Public Awareness. Promote public awareness of significant resources through educational programs, tours, markers, and other appropriate measures. The project is preserving the historical dwelling unit on site and restoring the front façade to the Department of Interior Standards. The new proposed construction is being designed in a way that it is architecturally compatible with the historic dwelling. In addition, the applicant is funding two historical plaques that will inform visitors to the site of the Rodoni home and the historic context of the neighborhood’s “Little Italy”. Land Use 1.2: Multifamily Neighborhoods. Ensure that new development in multifamily neighborhoods supports, rather than detracts from the existing residential character of the area. Land Use 1.3: Quality of Development. Ensure that all multifamily or mixed-use development in residential areas addresses compatibility and quality of life issues. Land Use 1.5: Suitable Housing. Promote suitably located housing and services for all age groups within the city Land Use 1.6: Variety of Housing Types. Encourage diverse housing types, such as live-work units, studio spaces, townhouses, co-housing, congregate care, and garden apartments. The Project proposes to add 14 new multi-family units and to preserve and partly restore an historic small single-family unit, which is a housing type not represented in significant numbers in the City’s current housing stock. It therefore furthers the General Plan policy included immediately above. Additionally, with the mitigations and conditions that staff has proposed (and that are identified in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration), the Project supports and is compatible with the residential character of its surrounding residential neighborhood. The Project would create a unique living environment by retaining the creek and adding considerable landscaping, including orchard- type trees and California native trees, shrubs and groundcover. The Project will also provide a turf area for passive recreation in the front of the site, raised planting beds for residents and shared facilities such as BBQ areas. Finally, due to its proximity to the many services on the San Pablo Avenue corridor, the Project provides an residents with the opportunity to rely on transit and non-motorized transportation options. ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6 Staff Report 2 Page 6 Community Design 1.3: High-Quality Design. Encourage higher-quality design through the use of well-crafted and maintained buildings and landscaping, use of higher-quality building materials, and attention to the design and execution of building details and amenities in both public and private projects. Community Design 1.9: Building Design. A variety of attractive images will be achieved by encouraging a variety of building styles and designs, within a unifying context of consistent “pedestrian” scale along streets and compatibility among neighboring land uses. Community Design 4.2: Building Articulation. Ensure that buildings are well articulated. Avoid large unarticulated shapes in building design. Ensure that building designs include varied building facades, rooflines, and building heights to create more interesting and differentiated building forms and shapes. Encourage human scale detail in architectural design. Do not allow unarticulated blank walls or unbroken series of garage doors on the facades of buildings facing the street or the Ohlone Greenway. Community Design 5.1: Design Review Process. Continue design review and approval process for all new development, changes, additions, and modifications of existing buildings (except for single-family homes on existing lots). The architecture of the proposed fourteen unit structure has been designed to reflect but not mimic the existing historic single family dwelling. The roof pitch of the dormers is consistent with the roof pitch of the single family dwelling, and while the materials are not the same, the appearance of the materials as well as their colors appear to be consistent with the existing main building. The proposed building interacts with Elm Street by providing an interesting variation in form and mass (as opposed to monolithic). The elevations include vertical architectural elements and horizontal color bands. Balconies and trellises have been added to soften the interface with the street. 2) Creation of a PD Planned Development District The specific purpose of the PD Planned Development district is to provide for detailed review of development that warrants special review and deviations from the existing development standards. As stated above, this district is also intended to provide opportunities for creative development approaches and standards that will achieve superior community design, environmental preservation and public benefit, in comparison to development under district regulations. If approved by City Council, the Zoning map will be amended for the subject property to note a change to RM-PD. ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6 Staff Report 2 Page 7 The project proponent is requesting variation from the specific development standards of the RM zone in order to retain the site’s environmental and historic community assets while accommodating a transit oriented design that is generally consistent with, and furthers the objectives of the General Plan. These four standards are described in detail, below. Development Standards Dev. Standards Required Proposed Setbacks Front 10 ft 10 ft Sides 5 ft; 10 ft for portions of building greater than 25 ft. in height 25ft on the west side, 3 ft. on the east side Rear 15ft 15 ft Height 35 ft 42 ft Parking 2/unit (21) 15 Lot Coverage 60 % max 53 % Distance Between Buildings 10 ft to 20 ft depending on location of primary rooms 10 ft to 20 ft While requiring relief from some development standards, the Project exceeds the RM zone minimum requirements for both common area and private open space and allows for ten percent less lot coverage than could have been achieved under the current RM district regulations. Each of the proposed development standard modifications is described below. a. Setback from Property Line of Relocated Historic Building The relocated historic building is proposed to be three feet away from the east side elevation, a reduction of two feet from the typical requirement. The distance is really a function of the width of the existing building and the location of the creek bank. The applicant has located the building as close as possible to the creek bank without compromising the building’s foundation or the bank of the creek. Staff determined this relief of two feet allows for an overall better design of the project, in that it allows the historic building to fit into that quadrant of the site. Staff also notes that it is only the front section of the house that requires this relief as the remaining two thirds of the structure do conform to the five foot requirement. This impact is further mitigated by the large common open space that is proposed for the front half of the lot. The preschool’s main building is located over 10 feet away on its abutting lot line, offering a large buffer between the two uses. Therefore, staff ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6 Staff Report 2 Page 8 believes that this variation will not adversely affect the usability of the adjacent preschool. Members of the Planning Commission did not voice dissent on this issue. b. Maximum Height of Proposed New Construction Pursuant to the El Cerrito Municipal Code, height is considered the vertical distance from the highest point of any structure to the ground level directly below. The maximum height allowed in the RM zone is 35 feet. As noted in the plan set, Attachment 7, the roof plate for this project is 33 ft tall. The additional 9 feet requested by the applicant is to allow for the mansard roof structure. This style of roof and resulting maximum height was one of the main points of conflict for the Planning Commission: Roof Style. The Department of Interior Standards recommends that new buildings that share sites with historic buildings be designed to be compatible with the historic character of the historic building in terms of size, scale design, material, color, and texture. The applicant has designed the new construction to meet that recommendation, including a number of architectural features that reflect the style of the historic building. The mansard roof with brown asphalt shingle roofing is used on both primary buildings and the pitch of each roof is also very similar. The applicant is also using horizontal siding painted in neutral tones to support this goal. Staff believes a flat roof that could meet the maximum height would not be preferable in this case. Further, the applicant has stated that the mansard roof will screen a number of the possible roof mounted utilities that would otherwise be partially visible or require a tall parapet wall. For these reasons, the mansard roof as proposed is the preferred design. Roof Height. At the May 21, 2014 meeting, some members of the Planning Commission were concerned about the overall height of the proposed structure, including its size in comparison to surrounding structures as well as the shade it cast. The applicant produced a series of shade studies in an attempt to quantify the impact. The studies illustrate that at 2:00 pm on December 21st (winter solstice when the period of daylight is the shortest or worst case in terms of building shade impact), the one property that will have the potential to experience shading impact is the residence directly to the north. These types of shadow studies are common ways to help to understand proposed building’s impact on the surrounding neighborhood. In this case, the Planning Commission has sent conflicting guidance to the City Council. In the April meeting, the Commission approved the height of the new building, but in the May meeting, the majority of the members present felt the building was too tall. Staff notes that the impact of shading is not specifically addressed by the Municipal Code at this time and was not discussed in the Initial Study as it is not considered an impact. c. Building Setback from the Creek and the pedestrian bridge One of the goals of the Creek Protection Overlay district is to preserve, enhance and restore natural drainageways as part of the storm drainage system, minimizing ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6 Staff Report 2 Page 9 any alterations or structures within the natural stream channel and streambed. In support of that goal, the Creek Protection Overlay District (Chapter 19.14) prohibits placement of fill or any other obstruction and establishes a minimum 30-foot setback from the top of creek bank. The new construction is proposed to be 7 feet, 8 inches from the center line of the creek and the relocated historic building is proposed to be 5 feet, 5 inches away from the centerline. In addition, a footbridge is proposed to cross the channel to provide access to the shared common area. The project is proposing to maintain the creek in its current location and ensure that it would not be filled or otherwise obstructed, although the project does entail constructing a new concrete headwall resulting in a slight (40 square foot) reduction in volume. The applicant has prepared a Riparian Enhancement Plan and aims for the creek channel to be part of the common open space area of the development and a site amenity. Although the Project does not include the 30-foot setback from the channel pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 19.14, it is noted in this case that the existing on-site surface water feature lacks characteristics of a natural riparian corridor and provides only marginal habitat value for wildlife that may include utilization by local birds and mammals. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration concludes that there would be less than significant impacts to biological resources as a result of this project. It is also noted that the applicant has concurrently applied for the required Joint Aquatic Resource Permit Agency (JARPA) permits and has to date received approval from one of the permitting bodies, the Department of Fish and Wildlife and is in consultation with the other two. No grading or building permit would be issued until and unless final approval is secured from all three agencies. Some members of the Planning Commission expressed doubt regarding the possibility of the project receiving the full JARPA approval. The development team includes a qualified biologist who has prepared the JARPA application and Riparian Enhancement Plan. The issue of the JARPA permit is outside the Planning Commission’s discretionary role. Reduction in the setback is required to accommodate the various project elements, and staff feels that the goals of the Creek Protection Overlay district are incorporated into the proposed Planned Development, in light of the site’s constraints and other public benefits provided. d. Required Parking for Vehicles The project proposes fifteen new parking spaces and is requesting an exception to the City parking requirements, which requires 21 spaces. The site plan illustrates that the parking area is enclosed on the ground floor and screened with a gate. By placing the parking below the proposed construction and not in a surface lot and by reducing the number of spaces from 21 to 15, the Project allows for much more efficient use of the site and makes land available for the new housing, the creek and a considerable amount of open space, and the retained and partially restored historic building. This style of parking tucked under the new construction is a preferred alternative with regard to urban design, which essentially hides the vehicles from public view, while accommodating them on site. In addition, staff believes that the close proximity of the project site to the El Cerrito Del Norte BART station ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6 Staff Report 2 Page 10 (located within a quarter mile), several bus lines, and commercial uses, will result in increased transit use and pedestrian activity that will reduce the demand for parking on site. As part of the work being completed in drafting the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan, staff has identified a number of studies that support a parking standard of one space per unit for projects up to one-half mile away from a BART station. Please see the recent studies included as Attachment 14. For all of these reasons, the majority of the Planning Commission did not seem to have any concerns regarding the reduction in parking to one parking space per unit for residences. 3) Development Agreement Section 19.14.020 of the El Cerrito Municipal Code states that Development Agreements are required as part of Planned Development Districts. Section 19.41.010 describe Development Agreements as follows: “Development Agreements provide a greater degree of certainty by granting assurance that an applicant may proceed with development in accordance with policies, rules, and regulations in effect at the time of approval subject to conditions to promote the orderly planning of public improvements and services, allocate costs to achieve maximum utilization of public and private resources in the development process, and ensure that appropriate measures to enhance and protect the environment are achieved. A Development Agreement shall be a contract that is negotiated and voluntarily entered into by the City and applicant and may contain any additional or modified conditions, terms or provisions agreed upon by the parties.” The City Attorney and legal counsel representing the applicant met and developed a Development Agreement for this project. (Attachment 5) The resulting legal document would take effect only after the passage of the ordinance creating the district by City Council. This is the legal framework that encompasses the entitlement details of the Planned Development District. It codifies the project entitlements for a term of ten years. It allows the property owner to sell the entitlement package to another party. Some Planning Commissioners expressed concern over the ten year duration, but it did not appear that the majority of the Commissioners were opposed to this component of the project entitlement package. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) have been prepared for this project. All potential impacts identified are reduced to a less than significant level pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act with the implementation of mitigation measures. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) has been prepared for this project and has been incorporated into the conditions of approval. All the mitigations are included as part of Attachment 1, Exhibit A. ---PAGE BREAK--- Reviewed by: Attachments: Agenda Item No. 6 Staff Report 2 1. Resolution approving the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project; Exhibit A. Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 2. Resolution approving a General Plan Amendment; 3. Ordinance to approve Planned Development District for the Project property and Amendment to the Zoning Map Exhibit A: Site Plan 4. Resolution denying an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of a Planned Development Use Permit for the Project. 5. Ordinance to approve a Development Agreement. Exhibit A: Development Agreement 6. General Plan Map 7. Plan Set 8. Revised Landscape Plan 9. March 19, 2014 StaffReport 10. April16, 2104 StaffReport, Resolutions and Shadow Study 11. May 21, Staff Report and Resolution 12. Letter of Appeal 13. Vicinity Map 14. Resource Page with links to studies regarding transit oriented development 15. Correspondence Page 11 . ---PAGE BREAK--- June 2, 2014 City Council Meeting Agenda Item No. 6 Public Hearing: Project at 1715 Elm Street – Planned Development and Appeal ATTACHMENT INDEX 1. Resolution approving the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project; Exhibit A. Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 2. Resolution approving a General Plan Amendment; 3. Ordinance to approve Planned Development District for the Project property and Amendment to the Zoning Map Exhibit A: Site Plan 4. Resolution denying an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of a Planned Development Use Permit for the Project. 5. Ordinance to approve a Development Agreement. Exhibit A: Development Agreement 6. General Plan Map 7. Plan Set 8. Revised Landscape Plan 9. March 19, 2014 Staff Report 10. April 16, 2104 Staff Report, Resolutions and Shadow Study 11. May 21, Staff Report and Resolution 12. Letter of Appeal 13. Vicinity Map 14. Resource Page with links to studies regarding transit oriented development 15. Correspondence ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 1 of 2 Agenda Item 6 Attachment 1 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF EL CERRITO CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING AN INITIAL STUDY WITH A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF 14 NEW DWELLING UNITS AND THE CONSERVATION OF AN EXISTING DWELLING UNIT AT 1715 ELM STREET. APPLICATION NO. 6133 WHEREAS, the subject site is located at 1715 Elm Street; and WHEREAS, the zoning district of the site is RM (Multifamily Residential); and WHEREAS, the general plan land use designation of the site is High Density; and WHEREAS, on January 13, 2014 the City circulated an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declarations pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, at its March 19, 2014 meeting, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing, received public testimony and directed staff to bring the project back for formal action; and WHEREAS, at their April 16, 2014 meeting, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing, received public testimony and adopted Resolution PC14-06, adopting an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, at their April 16, 2014 meeting, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing, received public testimony and adopted Resolution PC14-07, approving a Planned Development Use Permit; and WHEREAS, on June 2, 2014, the City Council of the City of El Cerrito, after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered for review, does find and determine the following: The City Council has considered the proposed negative declaration together with any comments received during the public review process, and finds, on the basis of the whole record before it, that: There is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment, and The negative declaration reflects the lead agency’s independent judgment and analysis. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of El Cerrito that after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, correspondence, and testimony, and other evidence submitted in this matter, and, in consideration of the findings, the El Cerrito City Council hereby adopts the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the construction of 14 new dwelling units and the conservation of one existing dwelling unit located at 1715 Elm Street. ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 2 of 2 Agenda Item 6 Attachment 1 I CERTIFY that at a special meeting on June 2, 2014 the City Council of the City of El Cerrito passed this Resolution by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: IN WITNESS of this action, I sign this document and affix the corporate seal of the City of El Cerrito on June____, 2014. Cheryl Morse, City Clerk APPROVED: Janet Abelson, Mayor Exhibit A: Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration located on the City’s Website at: Initial Study http://www.el-cerrito.org/DocumentCenter/View/3445 Traffic Analysis 2009 http://www.el-cerrito.org/DocumentCenter/View/3443 Review Letter 2013 http://www.el-cerrito.org/DocumentCenter/View/3444 Historic Resource Evaluation http://www.el-cerrito.org/DocumentCenter/View/3439 Biological Resources Assessment http://www.el-cerrito.org/DocumentCenter/View/3438 ---PAGE BREAK--- CITY OF EL CERRITO 1715 ELM STREET CONDOMINIUMS PROJECT DRAFT INITIAL STUDY AND NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PREPARED FOR: CITY OF EL CERRITO 10890 SAN PABLO AVENUE EL CERRITO, CA 94530 PREPARED BY: PACIFIC MUNICIPAL CONSULTANTS 2729 PROSPECT PARK DRIVE RANCHO CORDOVA, CA 95670 JANUARY 2014 Attachment 1, Exh. A ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- CITY OF EL CERRITO 1715 ELM STREET CONDOMINIUMS PROJECT DRAFT INITIAL STUDY AND NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PREPARED FOR CITY OF EL CERRITO 10890 San Pablo Avenue El Cerrito, CA 94530 PREPARED BY PACIFIC MUNICIPAL CONSULTANTS 2729 PROSPECT PARK DRIVE RANCHO CORDOVA, CA 95670 JANUARY 2014 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project January 2014 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 1 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF EL CERRITO 1715 ELM STREET CONDOMINIUMS PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM Introduction: This Initial Study has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code, Section 2100 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines. Project Title: 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project Project Location: 1715 Elm Street, El Cerrito, California, on the west side of Elm Street, between Blake and Hill streets, approximately 1,000 feet east of San Pablo Avenue Assessor’s Parcel Number: 502-112-038 General Plan Designation: High Density Residential (up to 35 units per acre) Zoning: RM (Multi-family Residential) Lead Agency Name and Address: City of El Cerrito Community Development Department 10890 San Pablo Avenue El Cerrito, CA 94530 Contact Person: Margaret Development Services Manager Phone: (510) 215-4332 Project Applicant: Edward Biggs Biggs Property Development 820 Kains Avenue, #108 Albany, CA 94706 ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project City of El Cerrito Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2014 2 EXISTING SETTING El Cerrito is located in Contra Costa County, in the northern San Francisco Bay Area, approximately 13.5 miles north of Oakland (Figure Contra Costa County is bordered by the counties of Alameda to the south, Solano to the north, and San Joaquin to the east. El Cerrito is bordered by Richmond to the north and west, Albany to the south, and Wildcat Canyon Regional Park and Kensington to the east. El Cerrito is approximately 5 miles from the campus of the University of California, Berkeley, and is located approximately one-half mile east of San Francisco Bay. The project site is a fairly level, rectangular 0.42-acre lot located at 1715 Elm Street. There is currently a fence running across the front of the property to restrict access to the site. The site slopes from a high point along the Elm Street frontage to the western boundary, representing a gentle 3 percent slope across the property. It currently includes a vacant two-story house built in 1897, a detached garage, a well house, and a shed. There are currently several persimmon trees and one miniature lemon tree on site. The site has fallen into disrepair and is now overgrown with weeds and unkempt landscaping. An open, rock-lined stormwater channel runs east–west across the site along the southern edge of the property approximately 20 feet from the house. The channel is approximately 4 feet deep and continues westerly onto the adjacent property in an open box culvert. The channel conveys stormwater runoff from upstream properties to the east. The project site is primarily surrounded by residential neighborhoods. Elm Street and residential properties are to the east, residential properties and Hill Street to the north, residential properties and Liberty Street to the west, and a day care and Blake Street are located to the south (Figure Summit K2, a public charter school, is approximately 700 feet to the northeast (due to open in fall of 2014). San Pablo Avenue, which is a major commercial corridor, and a Safeway store are a few blocks to the west. The El Cerrito del Norte BART station is approximately one- quarter mile to the northwest. This project has connections to sewer, water, electricity, gas, and cable television along the Elm Street frontage. The sanitary sewer main, which is located along the centerline of Elm Street, is at a low enough elevation that it can serve all proposed units. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Elm Street condominium project proposes 14 new condominiums in a three-story structure with parking on the ground floor, as well as the renovation and relocation of the existing single- family detached house on the site to provide a fifteenth living unit (see Figure 3, Site Plan). The existing 1,065-square-foot house contains two bedrooms. The proposed condominium would be 14,311 square feet, with 3 one-bedroom units (approximately 869 square feet per unit) and 11 two-bedroom units (approximately 1,064 square feet per unit). The project proposes a residential density of 35.7 units per acre. Project elevations are shown in Figure 4. Parking will be provided within a gated parking garage located below the units and includes one parking space designed to comply with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The project proposes 15 new parking spaces and is requesting an exception to the City parking requirements, which require 21 spaces. The proposed parking exception is based on the proximity of the project site to the El Cerrito del Norte BART station (less than one-half mile), several bus lines, and nearby commercial uses. ---PAGE BREAK--- S a n S a n F r a n c i s c o F r a n c i s c o C o u n t y C o u n t y S o l a n o S o l a n o C o u n t y C o u n t y A l a m e d a A l a m e d a C o u n t y C o u n t y M a r i n M a r i n C o u n t y C o u n t y C o n t r a C o s t a C o n t r a C o s t a C o u n t y C o u n t y S o n o m a S o n o m a C o u n t y C o u n t y N a p a N a p a C o u n t y C o u n t y S a n M a t e o S a n M a t e o C o u n t y C o u n t y S a n t a C l a r a S a n t a C l a r a C o u n t y C o u n t y Oakland San Jose Concord Antioch San Rafael--Novato Santa Rosa Vallejo Fairfield Napa Livermore Petaluma Sonoma Sonoma Half Moon Bay Half Moon Bay Dixon Dixon Fairfield Southwest Fairfield Southwest Yountville Yountville Sacramento River T:\_GIS\CONTRA_COSTA_COUNTY\MXDS\EL_CERRITTO\ELM_STREET\FIG 1 REGIONAL LOCATION.MXD - 11/12/2009 @ 11:01:54 AM 3.5 0 3.5 MILES Project Location Figure 1 Project Regional Location Source: ESRI Streetmap USA P a c i f i c O c e a n San Pablo Bay San Francisco Bay ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Source: Microsoft Bing Maps, 2013 T:\_GIS\CONTRA_COSTA_COUNTY\MXDS\EL_CERRITTO\ELM_STREET\FIG 2 PROJECT LOCATION.MXD - 2/7/2013 @ 5:09:36 PM 500 0 500 FEET Project Location Figure 2 Project Location ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- FEET 8 0 8 16 Source: LCA Architects T:\_CS\Work\El Cerrito, City of\1715 Elm Street 29-0152\figures Figure 3 Site Plan with Conceptual Streetscape and Buffer Yard Planting - - - E L M S TRE ET - C) ARE.&, IIIlTH fNFILTR.AT1~ TREE eu"FER - .AT 20' O.C - f\ CONCEPTUAL STREETSCAPE & 'BUFFER YARD' PLANTING PMC• ~ ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- FEET 8 0 8 Source: LCA Architects T:\_CS\Work\El Cerrito, City of\1715 Elm Street 29-0152\figures Figure 4 Conceptual Building Elevations EX IS liNG HOUSE IN FOREGROUND - see SHEET A-10 FOR MATERIALS P.L. ~51-011 L~IT 1. EAST ELEVATION :;s'-011 HEIGHT LIMIT ~ LEVEL 129.65' D mow ~ LEVEL 2 119.:;2' 2. WEST ELEVATION ~ N TRIM/RAILING COLOR f l SIDING COLOR t l VINYL WINDOWS CEMENT TRIM SIDING COLOR f2 TYPICAL MATERIALS FreER CEMENT FAt..SE GAet.E VENT AS-PHALT SHINGLE ROOPlNG HORIZONTAL SIDING WOOD AWNING WITH SHINGLE ROOF METAL RAILING AT LANDING WOOD TRELLIS OOWNSPOI)T (PAlNTfO TO MATCH SIOHfG) P.L. LEVEL t - UNIT 1A 1M.90' i i i ! , KEYPLAN w PMC• ~ ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project January 2014 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 11 LANDSCAPING Project landscaping includes densely planted landscape setbacks around the proposed buildings to provide a buffer between the project and adjacent residential sites. Trellises and picket fencing are featured along the street frontage to enhance the residential character of the street and separate public street space from private common open space. Both hard- and softscape outdoor areas are proposed for the use of residents and will be open to the street. Landscaping proposed in the common areas includes edible garden plantings (fruit trees and herbs), drought-tolerant plant species, and seasonal flower displays. Permeable brick pavers, crushed granite walkways, natural turf, and a stone seat-wall are features proposed at various locations to enhance the human scale of the garden. Two stormwater bioswales are proposed to mitigate storm runoff and would be vegetated with a combination of native grasses and wildflowers to provide additional natural habitat adjacent to the channel. The existing stormwater channel will be maintained in its current location, and a small footbridge is proposed to cross the channel to provide access to the proposed common open space on either side. The channel will be planted with a combination of native trees, shrubs, and vines. The irrigation system will specify commercial quality equipment consistent with City standards and will be selected based on water conservation, durability, and ease of maintenance. Proposed landscape areas will be irrigated with a low-volume spray/bubbler combination system designed to provide optimal coverage without overspray or runoff. GRADING Grading will balance the earthwork so that there is no net import or export of soils needed to accommodate construction. To comply with the Provision C.3 requirements of the Municipal Regional Permit (adopted by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board in 2009) and the City of El Cerrito, the project will provide on-site treatment of stormwater runoff into bioswales and potentially permeable pavement options, subject to recommendations of the geotechnical engineer. CONSTRUCTION Construction would occur Monday through Friday between the hours of 7:00 AM and 5:00 PM, and on Saturdays between the hours of 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM. There would be no construction on Sundays. REQUESTED ENTITLEMENTS The project applicant is seeking a General Plan Amendment, Use Permit, Planned Development, Zoning Map Amendment, Development Agreement, Tentative Map, and Design Review. Pursuant to El Cerrito Municipal Code Chapter 19.14, Planned Development District, the applicant is requesting relief from the following development standards: 1. Height standards described in the Municipal Code Chapter 19.06 for residential districts. 2. Setback standards described in Municipal Code Chapter 19.06 for residential districts. The minimum side yard setback in the RM zoning district is 5 feet or 10 feet for portions of a building greater than 25 feet in height. The project proposes a 5-foot setback with a ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project City of El Cerrito Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2014 12 building height of 35 feet. A shadow study was prepared for the project to inform the decision-makers of the effects of shadows on surrounding properties. 3. Setback standards described in Municipal Code Chapter 19.12 for the CP (Creek Protection) overlay district. Construction within a creek setback (including undergrounding the existing on-site ditch) would be subject to a Conditional Use Permit following discretionary review and public hearing by the Planning Commission. 4. Parking requirements described in Municipal Code Chapter 19.24 for off-street parking. The project is requesting an exception to the City parking requirements, which require 21 spaces, and proposes 15 new parking spaces. 5. Density standards described in Municipal Code Chapter 19.06. The code allows for one residential unit per every 1,250 square feet; the project proposes one unit per every 1,220 square feet. 6. As the proposed density exceeds 35 units per acre, a General Plan Amendment is also required. RESPONSIBLE/TRUSTEE AGENCIES The City of El Cerrito is the lead agency for the proposed project. Responsible and trustee agencies may include, but are not limited to:  San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board  Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)  California Department of Fish and Wildlife (formerly the Department of Fish and Game) ---PAGE BREAK--- INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL fACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "potentially significant impact" prior to mitigation, as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. D Aesthetics D Agriculture Resources ~ Air Quality ~ Biological Resources ~ Cultural Resources D Geology /Soils ~ Greenhouse Gas D Hazards & Hazardous D Hydrology /Water Emissions Materials Quality D Land Use/Planning D Mineral Resources D Noise D Population/Housing D Public Services D Recreation D Transportation/Traffic D Utilities/Service D Mandatory Findings of Systems Significance DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the lead agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: D D D D I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect ( 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and have been avoid ed or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the ose project, nothing further is required. Margaret K Development Services Manager Datd 1 City of El Cerrito January 2014 13 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project City of El Cerrito Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2014 14 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The project site is located at the base of the East Bay hills on a site that has relatively flat topography and is surrounded by existing one- and two-story residential development. Though ground slopes in the project vicinity are gentle, properties located north and east of the project site begin sloping upwards and are elevated above the project site. Views of the project site are shown in Figures 5 and 6. Because of the existing conditions surrounding the project site, views of San Francisco Bay, Point Richmond, Mount Tamalpais, and the San Pablo Hills are limited and/or nonexistent in the project vicinity. DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS a) Less Than Significant Impact. Scenic vistas include natural features such as topography, watercourses, rock outcrops, natural vegetation, and man-made alterations to the landscape. The project site is located in an area surrounded by relatively flat topography to the west and south and by gradually upward-sloping properties to the north and east. The project site does not contain unique visual features that would distinguish the site from surrounding areas, nor is it located within a designated scenic vista. The proposed project would have a less than significant impact on scenic vistas, as there would be no change to existing conditions regarding scenic vistas or scenic resources. The proposed project does not include any components that would change the overall character of the project site, block significant views from or in the vicinity of the project site, or change the nature of scenic resources. b) No Impact. There are two state-designated scenic highways and one eligible scenic highway in Contra Costa County (Caltrans 2012). The designated scenic highways are State Route (SR) 24 from the east side of the Caldecott Tunnel to Interstate 680 (I-680) near Walnut Creek and I-680 from the Alameda County line to near Walnut Creek. The eligible scenic highway is SR 4 between SR 160 near Antioch and SR 84 near Brentwood. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project January 2014 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 15 FIGURE 5 VIEW LOOKING ONTO THE PROPERTY FROM ELM STREET FIGURE 6 VIEW LOOKING SOUTHWEST ONTO THE PROPERTY FROM ELM STREET ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project City of El Cerrito Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2014 16 There are no state scenic highways in the project area from which the project is visible. There would be no impact. c) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site and surrounding vicinity are developed and consist of the adjacent school and residences. The houses to the east of the project site are two-story units set back approximately 20 feet from the street. The visibility of the site relative to scenic vistas was addressed under the discussion of Impact a above. The existing house on the site would be moved but would be renovated and would still be prominent on the site. The project has been designed to blend with the residential character of the surrounding neighborhood and existing house. The proposed development would place structures closer to side and rear property lines than the existing residence. While this would change the site characteristics, the change would be consistent and compatible with the predominant residential development patterns in the project vicinity. In addition, densely planted landscape setbacks would be provided around the proposed buildings to provide a buffer between the site and adjacent properties. Because the proposed project would be consistent with the residential nature of the area, it would not cause substantial degradation to the existing residential character or visual quality of the project site and its surroundings. Overall, there would be a less than significant impact on the existing visual character or quality of the site. d) Less Than Significant Impact. Existing nighttime light sources are predominantly from interior and exterior building lighting, vehicle headlights, and street lighting. Daytime sources of glare in the project vicinity include reflections off of light-colored surfaces, windows, and metal details on cars traveling on nearby roadways. Under the proposed project conditions, these existing sources of light and glare would remain. The project would include exterior lighting. Section 19.21.050.A of the El Cerrito Municipal Code requires all exterior lights to be designed, located, installed, directed, and shielded in such a manner as to prevent glare across property lines. Lights must be directed downward and away from adjacent properties and the public right-of-way. “Shielded” is defined in the code to mean that the light rays are directed onto the project site and any objectionable glare is not visible from an adjacent property or rights-of-way. Compliance with these regulations would ensure a less than significant impact related to light and glare. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project January 2014 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 17 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997), prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forestland (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forestland or conversion of forestland to non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural use or conversion of forestland to non-forest use? ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The project site is surrounded by existing development within El Cerrito. There are no agricultural resources in the vicinity of the project site or in the surrounding area. DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS a) No Impact. The project site is not designated as Prime or Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in conversion of these agricultural resources to nonagricultural use. b) No Impact. The project site is not zoned for agricultural use, nor is it under a Williamson Act contract. The project site is zoned RM, PD (Multi-family Residential, Planned Development Overlay). Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project City of El Cerrito Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2014 18 c, d) No Impact. The project site is in an urban area and is not located in the vicinity of existing forestland. Therefore, the proposed project would not involve changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, would result in conversion of forestland. e) No Impact. The project site is in an urban area and is not located in the vicinity of existing forestland or active or fallow agricultural land uses. Therefore, the proposed project would not involve changes in the existing environment that, due to their location or nature, would involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural use or conversion of forestland to non-forest use. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project January 2014 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 19 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The project site is located within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB). The SFBAAB comprises a single district, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), which encompasses Napa, Marin, San Francisco, Contra Costa, Alameda, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties, the southern portion of Sonoma County, and the western portion of Solano County. The project site is located in the Contra Costa County portion of the air basin. Within the SFBAAB, there are eleven major climatological subregions. In Contra Costa County, marine air traveling through the Golden Gate, as well as across San Francisco and through the San Bruno Gap, is a dominant weather factor. The Oakland-Berkeley Hills cause the westerly flow of air to split off to the north and south of Oakland, which causes diminished wind speeds. The prevailing winds for most of this climatological subregion are from the west. At the northern end, prevailing winds are from the south-southwest. Temperatures in the El Cerrito area have a narrow range due to the proximity of the moderating marine air. The maximum temperatures during summer average in the mid-70s, with minimums in the mid-50s. Winter highs are in the mid- to high 50s, with lows in the low to mid-40s. The air pollution potential is lowest for the parts of the climatological subregion that are closest to the bay, due largely to good ventilation and less influx of pollutants from upwind sources. The occurrence of light winds in the evenings and early mornings occasionally causes elevated pollutant levels. The air pollution potential in Contra Costa County is marginally higher than communities directly east of the Golden Gate because of the lower frequency of strong winds. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project City of El Cerrito Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2014 20 The county contains a variety of industrial air pollution sources. Some industries are quite close to residential areas. Contra Costa County is also traversed by frequently congested major freeways. Traffic and congestion, and the motor vehicle emissions they generate, are increasing. Both the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) have established ambient air quality standards for common pollutants. These ambient air quality standards are levels of contaminants representing safe levels that avoid specific adverse health effects associated with each pollutant. The ambient air quality standards cover what are called “criteria” pollutants because the health and other effects of each pollutant are described in criteria documents. Areas that meet ambient air quality standards are classified as attainment areas, while areas that do not meet these standards are classified as nonattainment areas. The SFBAAB is currently designated as nonattainment for the state and federal ambient air quality standards for ground-level ozone and PM2.5 as well as the state standards for PM10. CEQA Appendix G states the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make significance determinations. On June 2, 2010, the BAAQMD’s Board of Directors unanimously adopted thresholds of significance to assist local jurisdictions during the review of projects that are subject to CEQA. These thresholds of significance were designed to establish the level at which the BAAQMD believed air pollution emissions would cause significant environmental impacts under CEQA. The BAAQMD’s justification for the adopted thresholds of significance was incorporated into Appendix D of the BAAQMD’s updated California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines (2011a). DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS a) Less Than Significant Impact. As previously stated, the project site is located within the SFBAAB, which comprises a single air district, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. The project site is located in the Contra Costa County portion of the air basin. The BAAQMD prepares plans to attain ambient air quality standards in the air basin. The BAAQMD also prepares ozone attainment plans for the national ozone standard and clean air plans for the California standard, both in coordination with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). The BAAQMD prepared the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan to address the air basin’s nonattainment status with the national 1-hour ozone standard and the California ambient air quality standards (CAAQS). The purpose of the Clean Air Plan is to: 1. Update the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy in accordance with the requirements of the California Clean Air Act to implement all feasible measures to reduce ozone; 2. Consider the impacts of ozone control measures on particulate matter (PM), air toxics, and greenhouse gases in a single, integrated plan; 3. Review progress in improving air quality in recent years; and 4. Establish emission control measures to be adopted or implemented in the 2009–2012 time frame. The emissions inventories contained in the ozone attainment plan and Clean Air Plan are based on projected population growth and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for the region. These inventories are largely based on the predicted growth identified in regional and ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project January 2014 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 21 community general plans, including associated development projects. Projects that result in an increase in population or employment growth beyond that identified in regional or community plans could result in increases in VMT and subsequently increase mobile source emissions, which would not have been accounted for in the BAAQMD’s air quality plans, making the projects inconsistent with the plans. The proposed project is consistent with the land use designation of the City’s General Plan; therefore, the proposed project would not result in an increase in population or employment growth, and thus VMT, beyond that anticipated in the ozone attainment plan and Clean Air Plan. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the ozone attainment plan or Clean Air Plan. A project is also determined to be consistent with these air quality plans if the project includes applicable control measures in the plans and does not disrupt or hinder implementation of any control measures. As discussed in more detail under Impact b, the proposed project would not result in construction-generated or operational-related criteria air pollutants and/or precursor emissions that would exceed the BAAQMD thresholds of significance. Furthermore, although not required for consistency with these plans, adherence to mitigation measure AQ-1 would further reduce project emissions and ensure project consistency with the air quality plans. The proposed project would support the goals of the ozone attainment plan and Clean Air Plan, would include feasible control measures, would not disrupt or hinder implementation of any control measures, and would not result in vehicle trips greater than the projected population increase for the project site. Therefore, the project would be considered consistent with BAAQMD air quality plans, resulting in a less than significant impact. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The BAAQMD has developed project-level thresholds of significance in order to provide a conservative indication of whether a proposed project could result in potentially significant air quality impacts. To meet the project-level threshold of significance for construction- and/or operational-related criteria air pollutant and precursor impacts, the proposed project must emit no more than 54 pounds per day (lbs/day) of reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and/or PM2.5 and no more than 82 lbs/day of PM10. Construction Emissions Construction-generated emissions are short term and of temporary duration, lasting only as long as construction activities occur, but have the potential to represent a significant air quality impact. The proposed project would result in the temporary generation of emissions resulting from site grading, paving, motor vehicle exhaust associated with construction equipment and worker trips, the movement of construction equipment, and architectural coatings. Fugitive dust, the dominant source of PM10 and PM2.5 emissions, is generated when wheels or blades disturb surface materials. Uncontrolled dust from construction can become a nuisance and potential health hazard to those living and working nearby. Off- road construction equipment is often diesel-powered and can be a substantial source of NOx emissions, in addition to PM10 and PM2.5 emissions. Worker commute trips and architectural coatings are dominant sources of ROG emissions. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project City of El Cerrito Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2014 22 The predicted maximum daily construction-generated emissions of ROG, NOx, coarse particulate matter (PM10), and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) associated with project construction are compared with the BAAQMD significance criteria in Table 1. TABLE 1 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS (MAXIMUM) POUNDS PER DAY Construction Phase ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5 CO Construction Activities 5.52 29.90 2.32 1.97 20.10 BAAQMD Significance Criteria 54 54 82 54 None Significant? No No No No N/A Source: Emissions modeled by PMC using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2013.2.2 computer program. Notes: CO = carbon monoxide. Proposed rehabilitation of existing single-family unit assumed to be completely reconstructed for conservative analysis. Building construction, site paving, and painting activities assumed to occur concurrently. Refer to Appendix A for model data outputs. As shown in Table 1, maximum daily emissions would total approximately 5.52 lbs/day of ROG, 29.90 lbs/day of NOx, 2.32 lbs/day of PM10, 1.97 lbs/day of PM2.5, and approximately 20.10 lbs/day of CO. Actual daily emissions would vary from day to day and would be dependent on the specific activities conducted. Therefore, during construction of the proposed project, emissions generated would not exceed the BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance for air pollutant emissions, which would be considered a less than significant impact. Operational Impacts Increases in operational air impacts with implementation of the proposed project would generally consist of stationary and mobile sources. Implementation of the proposed project would result in regional emissions of PM10 and PM2.5, as well as ROG, NOx, and carbon monoxide (CO), due to increased use of motor vehicles, thereby increasing potential operational air quality impacts. Ozone is not emitted directly into the air but is formed through a complex series of chemical reactions between ROG and NOx, while the principal sources of PM10 and PM2.5 include fuel burned in cars and trucks, power plants, factories, fireplaces, agricultural activities, and woodstoves. PMC estimated criteria pollutant emissions generated during a typical year of project operation. In addition to projected stationary emissions, mobile emissions have also been quantified and compared to BAAQMD significance thresholds in Table 2. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project January 2014 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 23 TABLE 2 ESTIMATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS (MAXIMUM) POUNDS PER DAY Total Emissions Emission Source Pounds per Day ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5 CO Summer Operational Emissions 7.61 1.05 1.72 1.33 13.86 Winter Operational Emissions 7.62 1.15 1.72 1.33 14.34 BAAQMD Significance Thresholds (lbs/day) 54 54 82 54 – Significant? No No No No N/A Source: CalEEMod version 2013.2.2. Refer to Appendix A for model data outputs. Refer to subsection 7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, for discussion of carbon dioxide emissions. As shown in Table 2, the proposed project would not exceed BAAQMD thresholds for air pollutant emissions. Therefore, the long-term operational air quality impacts of the proposed project would be considered less than significant. The proposed project would not exceed project-level thresholds of significance for construction- and/or operational-related criteria air pollutants, resulting in a less than significant impact. c) Less Than Significant Impact. The SFBAAB is currently designated as a nonattainment area for state and national ozone standards and national particulate matter ambient air quality standards. The SFBAAB’s nonattainment status is attributed to the region’s development history. Past, present, and future development projects contribute to the region’s adverse air quality impacts on a cumulative basis. By its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. According to the BAAQMD, no single project is sufficient in size, by itself, to result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. In developing thresholds of significance for air pollutants, the BAAQMD considered the emission levels for which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. According to the BAAQMD, if a project exceeds its identified significance thresholds, the project would be cumulatively considerable. As demonstrated under Impact b, the proposed project would not exceed BAAQMD thresholds for air pollutant emissions during construction or operations (see Tables 1 and Therefore, since the project does not exceed BAAQMD significance thresholds, it would result in less than significant cumulative impacts. d) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Sensitive receptors are generally defined as uses that house or attract groups of children, the elderly, people with illnesses, and others who are especially sensitive to the effects of air pollutants. Schools, hospitals, residential areas, and convalescent facilities are examples of sensitive receptors. The project site is considered a sensitive receptor (following construction of residential uses) and is adjacent to other residential areas. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project City of El Cerrito Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2014 24 Short-Term Construction Toxics Construction activities would involve the use of a variety of gasoline- or diesel-powered equipment that emits exhaust fumes and generates dust during soil disturbance. These temporary air quality impacts could negatively affect sensitive receptors in the project area. With implementation of mitigation measure AQ-1, these temporary impacts will be reduced to a less than significant level. Localized Carbon Monoxide Localized carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations near roadway intersections are a function of traffic volume, speed, and delay. Transport of CO is extremely limited because carbon monoxide disperses rapidly with distance from the source. Based on BAAQMD guidance, projects meeting all of the following screening criteria would be considered to have a less than significant impact to localized carbon monoxide concentrations: 1. The project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, regional transportation plans, and local congestion management agency plans. 2. The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour. 3. The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, below-grade roadway). The project would not increase traffic volumes at any intersection to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour or 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited as determined by the Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Rates, 8th Edition (2008), which estimates an average of 85 trips per day generated as a result of the project. As such, the proposed project would not exceed the BAAQMD’s significance thresholds for carbon monoxide. Toxic Air Contaminants There are many different types of toxic air contaminants (TACs), with varying degrees of toxicity. Sources of TACs potentially affecting the project site include commercial operations, such as gasoline stations and dry cleaners. Mobile sources of air toxics include freeways and major roadways. These roadways are sources of diesel particulate matter (DPM), which CARB has listed as a toxic air contaminant. The proposed project would not be a source of TACs. However, there is a potential that the project site could be exposed to TAC emissions from stationary and/or mobile sources. According to the BAAQMD’s Stationary Source Screening Analysis Tool (2011b), there is one fueling station and one hardware store in the vicinity of the project site. Gas ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project January 2014 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 25 refueling facilities and hardware stores are regulated by BAAQMD Regulation 2, Rule 5, which provides for the review of TAC emissions in order to evaluate potential public exposure and health risk, to mitigate potentially significant health risks resulting from these exposures, and to provide net health risk benefits by improving the level of control when existing sources are modified or replaced. Pursuant to BAAQMD Regulation 2, Rule 5, stationary sources having the potential to emit TACs, including gas stations and dry cleaners, are required to obtain permits from the BAAQMD. Permits may be granted to these operations provided they are operated in accordance with applicable BAAQMD rules and regulations. Given that compliance with applicable standards and regulations is required as part of the normal permit procedure, TAC emissions from the one fueling station and one hardware store in the project vicinity would not be anticipated to result in a risk to future sensitive receptors of the proposed project. In April 2005, CARB released the Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective, which offers guidance on siting sensitive land uses in proximity to sources of air toxics. The handbook recommends that sensitive land uses be sited no closer than 500 feet from a freeway or major roadway with 100,000 vehicles per day, in order to avoid excessive exposure to diesel exhaust particulates. The project is located more than 1,063 feet from San Pablo Avenue and 662 feet from Potrero Avenue and is therefore consistent with the CARB siting guidance. For the reasons noted, future residents of the project would not be negatively affected by toxic air contaminants generated at any of the potential stationary sources or major transportation facilities in the vicinity. Impacts to sensitive receptors are considered to be less than significant. e) No Impact. The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines do not classify residential uses as a project that could create objectionable odors. In addition, the proposed project is not located downwind from any significant odor sources landfills, sewage treatment plants) that could affect persons on the project site. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people or subject people to objectionable odors, and no impact would occur. MITIGATION MEASURES AQ-1 To adequately control dust, the project applicant shall ensure construction contracts contain requirements for implementing the BAAQMD’s basic construction mitigation measures from Table 8-1 of the BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines. Construction contracts shall also contain the following measures in order to reduce the emissions of toxic pollutants generated by heavy-duty diesel- powered equipment during construction. 1. Keep all construction equipment in proper tune in accordance with manufacturers’ specifications. 2. Use late-model heavy-duty diesel-powered equipment during construction to the extent that it is readily available in the San Francisco Bay Area. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project City of El Cerrito Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2014 26 3. Use diesel-powered equipment that has been retrofitted with after-treatment products engine to the extent that it is readily available in the San Francisco Bay Area. 4. Use low-emission diesel fuel for all heavy-duty diesel-powered equipment operating and refueling at construction sites to the extent that it is readily available and cost effective in the San Francisco Bay Area. (This requirement does not apply to diesel-powered trucks traveling to and from the site.) 5. Utilize alternative-fuel construction equipment compressed natural gas, liquid petroleum gas, and unleaded gasoline) to the extent that the equipment is readily available and cost effective in the San Francisco Bay Area. 6. Limit truck and equipment idling time to 5 minutes or less. 7. Rely on the electricity infrastructure surrounding the construction site rather than electrical generators powered by internal combustion engines to the extent feasible. Timing/Implementation: Prior to construction Enforcement/Monitoring: City of El Cerrito Planning Division ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project January 2014 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 27 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Note to the reader: As of January 1, 2013, the agency formerly known as the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) changed its name to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). For purposes of this discussion, the agency names and abbreviations are interchangeable. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Two steps were taken to characterize the environmental setting on and adjacent to the proposed project. First, preliminary database searches were performed to identify special-status species with the potential to occur in the area. Second, a site survey was conducted to collect site-specific data regarding habitat suitability for special-status species and to identify potentially jurisdictional waters. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project City of El Cerrito Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2014 28 Database searches were performed on the following websites:  US Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) Sacramento Office Species Lists (2012)  California Natural Diversity Database (CDFG 2012)  California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS) Inventory of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants of California (2012) A search of the USFWS’s database was performed for the Richmond, California, US Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangle to identify special-status species within their jurisdiction that may be affected by the proposed project. In addition, a query of the provided a list of known occurrences for special-status species within a 1- and 5-mile radius of the proposed project. Lastly, the CNPS database was queried to identify special-status plant species with the potential to occur within the Richmond, California, USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle. Please see the discussion below for a summary of the database search results and potential impacts to protected species as a result of the proposed project. The site survey on September 21, 2012, revealed that urban residential land uses dominate the proposed project site and adjacent lands. (Table 3) The site contains a residential structure along with a garage, well house, and shed. The vegetation on-site is characterized by ruderal herbaceous species, with scattered orchard trees. In addition, a U-shaped surface water feature traverses the property from east to west. This feature is characterized by cobble-reinforced sidewalls and bed, and is dominated by watercress (Nasturtium officinale). TABLE 3 EXISTING LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS Land Use Acreage Urban 0.41 Surface Water 0.01 Total 0.42 SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES Candidate, sensitive, or special-status species are commonly characterized as species that are at potential risk or actual risk to their persistence in a given area or across their native habitat. These species have been identified and assigned a status ranking by governmental agencies such as the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), the USFWS, and private organizations such as the CNPS. The degree to which a species is at risk of extinction is the determining factor in the assignment of a status ranking. Some common threats to a species’ or a population’s persistence include habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation, as well as human conflict and intrusion. For the purposes of this biological review, special-status species are defined by the following codes: 1. Listed, proposed, or candidates for listing under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) (50 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 17.11 – listed; 61 Federal Register [FR] 7591, February 28, 1996, candidates); ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project January 2014 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 29 2. Listed or proposed for listing under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish and Game Code [FGC] 1992 Section 2050 et seq.; 14 California Code of Regulations [CCR] Section 670.1 et seq.); 3. Designated as Species of Special Concern by the CDFW; 4. Designated as Fully Protected by the CDFW (FGC Sections 3511, 4700, 5050, 5515); and 5. Species that meet the definition of rare or endangered under CEQA (14 CCR Section 15380) including CNPS List Rank 1b and 2. The result of the USFWS, and CNPS database queries identified several special-status species with the potential to be impacted by the proposed project. Table 4 provides a summary of all species identified in the search results, a description of the habitat requirements for each species, and conclusions regarding the potential for each species to be impacted by the proposed project. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project City of El Cerrito Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2014 30 TABLE 4 SENSITIVE HABITAT AND PLANT AND WILDLIFE SPECIES POTENTIALLY OCCURRING IN THE STUDY AREA Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status State Status CNPS Rare Plant Rank General Habitat Characteristics Potential to Be Affected by the Project Plants Pallid manzanita Arctostaphylos pallida T E 1B.1 Siliceous shale, sandy or gravelly soil. Broadleafed upland forest, closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub (CNPS 2012). None. No habitat on-site. Santa Cruz tarplant Holocarpha macradenia T E 1B.1 Clay, sandy soil. Coastal prairie, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland (CNPS 2012). None. No habitat on-site. Critical habitat, Santa Cruz tarplant X – – – No critical habitat on or near the project site. California seablite Suaeda californica E – 1B.1 Marshes and swamps (coastal salt) (CNPS 2012). None. No habitat on-site. Alkali milk-vetch Astragalus tener var. tener – – 1B.2 Alkaline soils. Playas, valley and foothill grassland (adobe clay), vernal pools (CNPS 2012). None. No habitat on-site. Bent-flowered fiddleneck Amsinckia lunaris – – 1B.2 Coastal bluff scrub, cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland (CNPS 2012). None. No habitat on-site. Coastal bluff morning- glory Calystegia purpurata ssp. saxicola – – 1B.2 Coastal dunes, coastal scrub, north coast coniferous forest (CNPS 2012). None. No habitat on-site. Diablo helianthella Helianthella castanea – – 1B.2 Broadleaf upland forest, chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, riparian woodland, valley and foothill grassland (CNPS 2012). None. No habitat on-site. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project January 2014 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 31 Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status State Status CNPS Rare Plant Rank General Habitat Characteristics Potential to Be Affected by the Project Fragrant fritillary Fritillaria liliacea – – 1B.2 Serpentinite soils. Cismontane woodland, coastal prairie, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland (CNPS 2012). None. No habitat on-site. Franciscan thistle Cirsium andrewsii – – 1B.2 Mesic, sometimes serpentinite soils. Broadleafed upland forest, coastal bluff scrub, coastal prairie, coastal scrub (CNPS 2012). None. No habitat on-site. Loma Prieta hoita Hoita strobilina – – 1B.2 Usually serpentinite, mesic soils. Chaparral, cismontane woodland, riparian woodland (CNPS 2012). None. No habitat on-site. Oregon meconella Meconella oregana – – 1B.1 Coastal prairie, coastal scrub (CNPS 2012). None. No habitat on-site. Point Reyes bird's-beak Chloropyron maritimum ssp. palustre – – 1B.2 Marshes & swamps (coastal salt) (CNPS 2012). None. No habitat on-site. Round-leaved filaree California – – 1B.1 Clay soils. Cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland (CNPS 2012). None. No habitat on-site. Saline clover Trifolium hydrophilum – – 1B.2 Marshes and swamps, valley and foothill grassland (mesic, alkaline), vernal pools (CNPS 2012). None. No habitat on-site. Western leatherwood Dirca occidentalis – – 1B.2 Mesic soils. Broadleafed upland forest, closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral, cismontane woodland, north coast coniferous forest, riparian forest, riparian woodland (CNPS 2012). None. No habitat on-site. Invertebrates Callippe silverspot butterfly Speyeria callippe callippe E Host plant: violet (Viola pedunculata) (Essig 2012). None. Host plant does not occur on-site. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project City of El Cerrito Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2014 32 Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status State Status CNPS Rare Plant Rank General Habitat Characteristics Potential to Be Affected by the Project Fish Green sturgeon Acipenser medirostris T (NMFS) T Oceanic waters, bays, and estuaries during non-spawning season. Spawning habitat = deep pools in large, turbulent, freshwater mainstems (NMFS 2005). None. No habitat on-site. Tidewater goby Eucyclogobius newberryi E E Brackish water, shallow lagoons and lower stream reaches, still water (USFWS 2005). None. No habitat on-site. Delta smelt Hypomesus transpacificus T E Brackish water below 25°C non- spawning season. Spawning habitat = shallow, fresh, or brackish backwater sloughs with good water quality and substrate (USFWS 1995). None. No habitat on-site. Coho salmon – central CA coast kisutch T T Spawning habitat = small streams, stable gravel substrates. Non-spawning = estuarine, marine waters (Weitkamp et al. 1995). None. No habitat on-site. Central California coastal steelhead mykiss T (NMFS) T Spawning habitat = gravel-bottomed, fast-flowing, well-oxygenated rivers and streams. Non-spawning = estuarine, marine waters (Busby et al. 1996). None. No habitat on-site. Central Valley steelhead T (NMFS) T None. No habitat on-site. Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon T (NMFS) E Spawning habitat = fast moving, freshwater streams and rivers. Juvenile habitat = brackish estuaries. Non- spawning = marine waters (Myers et al. 1998). None. No habitat on-site. Critical habitat, winter-run Chinook salmon X – No critical habitat on or near the project site. Winter-run Chinook Salmon, Sacramento River E (NMFS) SSC None. No habitat on-site. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project January 2014 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 33 Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status State Status CNPS Rare Plant Rank General Habitat Characteristics Potential to Be Affected by the Project Amphibians California red-legged frog Rana draytonii T – Ponds/streams in humid forests, woodlands, grasslands, coastal scrub, and streamsides with plant cover in lowlands or foothills. Breeding habitat = permanent or ephemeral water sources; lakes, ponds, reservoirs, slow streams, marshes, bogs, and swamps. Ephemeral wetland habitats require animal burrows or other moist refuges for estivation when the wetlands are dry. From sea level to 5,000 feet (1,525 meters) (Nafis 2012). None. No habitat on-site. Critical habitat, California red-legged frog X – No critical habitat on or near the project site. Reptiles Alameda whipsnake [=striped racer] Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus T T Canyons, rocky hillsides, chaparral scrublands, open woodlands, pond edges and stream courses (Nafis 2012). None. No habitat on-site. Critical habitat, Alameda whipsnake X No critical habitat on or near the project site. Birds Western snowy plover Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus T Barren to sparsely vegetated sand beaches, dry salt flats in lagoons, dredge spoils deposited on beach or dune habitat, levees and flats at salt- evaporation ponds, river bars, along alkaline or saline lakes, reservoirs, and ponds (Cornell Lab of Ornithology 2012). None. No habitat on-site. California brown pelican Pelecanus occidentalis californicus E Warm coastal marine and estuarine environments. Rare inland. Breeds primarily on islands (Cornell Lab of Ornithology 2012). None. No habitat on-site. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project City of El Cerrito Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2014 34 Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status State Status CNPS Rare Plant Rank General Habitat Characteristics Potential to Be Affected by the Project California clapper rail Rallus longirostris obsoletus E E Salt marshes and mangrove swamps (Cornell Lab of Ornithology 2012). None. No habitat on-site. California least tern Sternula antillarum (=Sterna, =albifrons) browni E Seacoasts, beaches, bays, estuaries, lagoons, lakes and rivers, breeding on sandy or gravelly beaches and banks of rivers or lakes, rarely on flat rooftops of buildings (Cornell Lab of Ornithology 2012). None. No habitat on-site. Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus D E Typically nest in forested areas adjacent to large bodies of water, staying away from heavily developed areas when possible. Tolerant of human activity when feeding, and may congregate around fish processing plants, dumps, and below dams where fish concentrate. For perching, prefer tall, mature coniferous or deciduous trees that afford a wide view of the surroundings. In winter, bald eagles can also be seen in dry, open uplands if there is access to open water for fishing (Cornell Lab of Ornithology 2012). None. No habitat on-site. Cackling (=Aleutian Canada) goose Branta hutchinsii leucopareia D – Breeds in coastal marshes, along tundra ponds and streams, and steep turf slopes above rocky shores (Cornell Lab of Ornithology 2012). None. No habitat on-site. California black rail Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus – T Nests in high portions of salt marshes, shallow freshwater marshes, wet meadows, and flooded grassy vegetation (Cornell Lab of Ornithology 2012). None. No habitat on-site. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project January 2014 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 35 Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status State Status CNPS Rare Plant Rank General Habitat Characteristics Potential to Be Affected by the Project Mammals Salt marsh harvest mouse Reithrodontomys raviventris E E Salt marshes with dense stands of pickleweed; adjacent to upland, salt- tolerant vegetation (USFWS 1984). None. No habitat on-site. Key Federal & State Status Endangered – Listed as being in danger of extinction. Threatened – Listed as likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future. (NMFS) Species under the jurisdiction of the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Service. Consult with them directly about these species. Critical Habitat – Area essential to the conservation of a species. Critical habitat designated for this species. Delisted CNPS Rare Plant Rank Rareness Ranks (1A) Presumed Extinct in California (1B) Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and Elsewhere Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California, but More Common Elsewhere More Species Information Needed Limited Distribution Threat Ranks (0.1) Seriously threatened in California (0.2) Fairly threatened in California (0.3) Not very threatened in California ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project City of El Cerrito Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2014 36 DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS a) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Several special-status species were identified in the area by the database queries; however, the urban land uses on and adjacent to the proposed project site do not provide suitable habitat for any of the special-status plant species listed as occurring in the area. Several wildlife species were also identified. The majority of the species with the potential to occur in the project vicinity are associated with coastal habitats salt marshes, mangroves, brackish/estuarine waters). These habitats do not occur on-site; therefore, no impacts to special-status species associated with coastal habitats will occur. The on-site surface water feature was historically a natural creek that was subsequently channelized for stormwater conveyance and is a tributary of Baxter Creek. A geographic information system (GIS) data layer was obtained from Contra Costa County that depicts the location and extent of creeks within El Cerrito (Contra Costa County 2007). An analysis conducted using the creek GIS layer and aerial photo-interpretation of existing land uses, to determine the extent of the Baxter Creek tributary that has been undergrounded, determined that the Baxter Creek tributary crossing the project site is approximately 9,550 feet in length, approximately 7,750 linear feet have been undergrounded, and 1,800 linear feet remain daylighted (Figure The on-site surface water on the project site represents approximately 115 linear feet of the daylighted segments. A few species associated with streams and creeks were identified as having the potential to occur in the project vicinity. The special-status fish species associated with streams and creeks that have the potential to occur in the project vicinity are anadramous. Although Baxter Creek eventually drains into San Francisco Bay, approximately 1.25 miles of the creek is undergrounded between the project site and the bay. The extent of creek that is underground before reaching the property precludes the migration of any special-status fish species into the on-site surface water. In addition, the lack of natural connections to suitable habitat for the special-status amphibian and reptile species associated with streams and creeks in the project vicinity and the unsuitable habitat conditions within the on-site surface water eliminate the potential for these species to occur on-site. Therefore, no impact to special-status species would occur as a result of the proposed project. The proposed project does, however, have the potential to impact migratory birds, raptors, and bats. Trees on and adjacent to the project site may provide suitable nesting habitat for birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), as well as Sections 3503.5 and 3800–3806 of the FGC. In addition, the abandoned structures on-site have the potential to provide suitable nesting habitat for protected birds and roosting habitat for bats. Demolition of structures and removal of trees during construction activities could result in noise, dust, human disturbance, and other direct or indirect impacts to nesting birds and roosting bats on or in the vicinity of the project site. Potential nest abandonment and mortality to eggs and chicks would be considered a potentially significant impact to protected bird species; however, implementation of mitigation measures BIO-1 through BIO-3 will reduce those impacts to a less than significant level. In addition, mortality of roosting bat species during construction would be considered a potentially significant impact; however, implementation of mitigation measure BIO-4 will reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. ---PAGE BREAK--- Tributary of Baxter Creek Baxter Creek Source: Bing Maps, 2012; Contra Costa County, 2012; PMC, 2012 T:\_GIS\CONTRA_COSTA_COUNTY\MXDS\EL_CERRITTO\ELM_STREET\FIG CREEK.MXD - 2/7/2013 @ 5:11:27 PM 500 0 500 FEET Figure 7 Creek Map Legend Project Site El Cerrito City Limit Daylighted Underground ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project January 2014 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 39 b) Less Than Significant Impact. Sensitive habitats include those that are of special concern to resource agencies and those that are protected under CEQA, Section 1600 of the FGC, and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The on-site stormwater channel is currently characterized by cobble-reinforced sidewalls and bed. The predominant vegetation is watercress. There is no riparian habitat associated with this feature. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. c) Less Than Significant Impact. To date, a jurisdictional determination for the project has not been verified by any state or federal agencies. However, the on-site water feature (stormwater channel) is presumed to be jurisdictional to the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the CDFW. The project proposes to maintain the stormwater channel in its current location. The channel would be preserved in its current state and would not be filled or otherwise altered. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. Although the project does not propose alterations or fill in the channel, Mitigation BIO-5 is included to ensure waters of the United States would not be negatively affected by project activities. d) No Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not interfere substantially with the movement of native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species. No established migratory routes are identified on or adjacent to the project site. Additionally, the on-site drainage feature has no natural connections to perennial features utilized by anadromous fish species. Due to the highly urbanized land uses in the project vicinity, it is unlikely that any significant aquatic or wildlife corridors exist in the project vicinity. Therefore, no impact will occur. e) Less Than Significant Impact. Chapter 19.12 of the El Cerrito Municipal Code affords protective measures to natural watercourses identified in the CP (Creek Protection) overlay zone. Specifically, El Cerrito Municipal Code Section 19.12.010 states: The City Council finds that public health and safety require creek and watershed management and planning in order to control flood and erosion damages and to preserve natural watercourses as an important public asset that provides environmental, recreational and aesthetic value within the city. A dependence on structural solutions such as creek channelization, culverting and channel riprapping has often been found to result in the loss of property from unanticipated problems associated with their design and can result in serious bank erosion and flooding. Streams managed as close to a natural system as possible without interference from structures, maintain a geomorphic equilibrium or watercourse best suited for carrying stream flows, and carrying and depositing suspended sediment loads. Natural streams have significant benefits in that they filter pollutants and provide wildlife habitat and wildlife corridors. Accordingly, the purposes of the -CP Creek Protection overlay district is to delineate creeks and major drainages and ensure that development or other activities in these sensitive areas achieves the following goals: A. Preserves, enhances and restores natural drainage ways as parts of the storm drainage system, minimizing any alterations or structures within the natural stream channel and streambed. B. Preserves riparian vegetation and protects wildlife habitat and wildlife corridors along natural drainage ways. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project City of El Cerrito Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2014 40 C. Protect lands adjacent to riparian areas as public or private permanent open space through dedication or easements. D. Protects property owners and the public from erosion and flooding. E. Increases access to creeks for maintenance purposes and for potential public access to creek-side amenities. F. Ensures that projects are consistent with City Council adopted guidelines and resolutions for creek restoration and improvement, including designated creeks as natural corridors with habitat enhancement. G. Furthers the Joint Watershed Goals Statement of restoring creeks by removing culverts, underground pipes, and obstructions to fish and animal migration, and daylighting creeks where they can be enjoyed by people and wildlife. Municipal Code Chapter 19.14 establishes PD (Planned Development) overlay zones to allow deviations from development standards where superior community design or public benefit will be achieved. The project site is incorporated in the PD overlay, and the on-site surface water has been incorporated into the CP overlay and is therefore afforded protection measures under the Municipal Code unless waived as part of the planned development review. The CP overlay prohibits placement of fill or any other obstruction and establishes a minimum 30-foot setback from the top of creek bank or upland edge of riparian vegetation, whichever is greater, for all features in the CP overlay. As described previously, the stormwater channel would be maintained in its current location and would not be filled or otherwise obstructed. However, as shown on the proposed site plan (see Figure the minimum 30-foot setback would not be provided, as structures, walkways, hardscape features, and landscaping are proposed within approximately 5 feet of the channel. In addition, a footbridge is proposed to cross the channel to provide access to the shared common area. Although the project does not include the 30-foot setback from the channel pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 19.14, because the on-site surface water feature lacks characteristics of a natural riparian corridor and provides only marginal habitat value for wildlife that may include utilization by local birds and mammals, as well as by feral and domesticated pets, there would be less than significant impacts to biological resources. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the City’s Municipal Code, which is intended to protect natural riparian areas. f) No Impact. There are currently no adopted or proposed habitat conservation plans, natural community conservation plans, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans that affect the proposed project. Therefore, no impact would occur. MITIGATION MEASURES BIO-1 Survey for Migratory Birds. If clearing and/or construction activities will occur during the migratory bird nesting season (April 15–August 15), preconstruction surveys for nesting migratory birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist, up to 14 days before initiation of construction activities. The qualified biologist shall ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project January 2014 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 41 survey the construction zone and a 250-foot radius surrounding the construction zone to determine whether the activities taking place have the potential to disturb or otherwise harm nesting birds. If active nest(s) are identified during the preconstruction survey, a qualified biologist shall monitor the nest to determine when the young have fledged. monitoring reports, documenting nest status, shall be submitted to the City Planning Division until the nest(s) is deemed inactive. The biological monitor shall have the authority to cease construction if there is any sign of distress to a raptor or migratory bird. Reference to this requirement and to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act shall be included in the construction specifications. Timing/Implementation: Prior to construction Enforcement/Monitoring: City of El Cerrito Planning Division BIO-2 Survey for Active Raptor Nests. If construction activities will occur during the nesting season for raptors (January 15–August 15), all suitable raptor nesting habitat within 0.5 mile of the impacted area shall be surveyed for active raptor nests before construction activity commences. If an active raptor nest is located within 0.5 mile of the construction site, a no-activity buffer shall be erected around the nest while the nest is active to protect the nesting raptors. This buffer distance may be amended to account for nests that are not within the line of sight of the construction activity. Timing/Implementation: Prior to construction Enforcement/Monitoring: City of El Cerrito Planning Division BIO-3 Conduct Surveys for Bird Nests in Structures. If demolition of on-site structures is proposed to take place during the migratory bird nesting season (April 15–August 15), a survey for nesting migratory birds swallows, phoebes) shall be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to demolition. If bird nests are discovered in the structure, the structure shall not be removed until the nest(s) become inactive. Timing/Implementation: Prior to demolition Enforcement/Monitoring: City of El Cerrito Planning Division BIO-4 Conduct Surveys for Potential Bat Roosts. Demolition of on-site structures shall be preceded by a survey for bat presence. Structures being used by bats will not be removed until it has been determined that bats are no longer using the site or until demolition can be carried out without harming any bats. Timing/Implementation: Prior to demolition Enforcement/Monitoring: City of El Cerrito Planning Division BIO-5 Mitigate for Loss of Waters of the United States. If the US Army Corps of Engineers identifies that the feature is jurisdictional, the project applicant shall ensure that the project will result in no net loss of waters of the United States by providing ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project City of El Cerrito Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2014 42 mitigation through impact avoidance, impact minimization, and/or compensatory mitigation for the impact, as determined in the CWA Section 404/401 permits and/or 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement. Timing/Implementation: Prior to construction Enforcement/Monitoring: City of El Cerrito Planning Division ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project January 2014 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 43 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The following is based on the Historic Resource Evaluation for 1715 Elm Street, El Cerrito, California, prepared by VerPlanck Historic Preservation Consulting. The area immediately surrounding the property, historically a semirural area of small ranches and single-family dwellings, was built out during the post–World War II era as suburban development overtook the once semirural enclave of Little Italy. Ambrose and Virginia Rodoni eventually purchased three adjoining lots, creating a larger landholding measuring 150 feet along Elm Street (originally Union Street) and 130 feet deep. This property, comprising nearly a half acre, was more than sufficient to create a compact “weekend ranch” capable of supporting their large family with homegrown produce, fruit, wine, and possibly livestock. A well and water pulled from the creek were used to irrigate the property and to provide drinking water, until the property was hooked up to municipal water in the 1940s. The project site currently contains four buildings: the main house, garage, well house, and shed, as well as other features characteristic of rural agricultural properties. The house was constructed in 1897 by Ambrose Rodoni and, based on information from the Contra Costa County Assessor, it is the third-oldest building in El Cerrito. The Rodoni house is a two-story, wood-frame, T-plan, Queen Anne–style dwelling with a compound hip and gable roof. Permit applications from the 1940s indicate that the Rodoni family completed an interior remodel, which included a new kitchen, carpeting, and other unspecified changes on the first floor level of the house. In 1949, the rear portion of the basement was converted into living quarters, and after 1968, the original wood windows were replaced with aluminum sliders, and the tank house and a windmill were demolished. The garage was built before 1930 by the Rodoni family to provide shelter for their vehicles and possibly farm equipment. The shed is mainly clad in corrugated metal and fiberglass panels and is supported by metal pipe railings and wood studs and ceiling joists. The shed is of unknown origin, but it appears to have been built within the last 25 to 30 years. The well house was possibly built after 1968, when the original windmill and tank house were demolished. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project City of El Cerrito Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2014 44 The channel that runs through the southern third of the property appears on nineteenth-century USGS maps, and the Contra Costa County Assessor shows the unnamed channel on its GIS maps, indicating that it is not simply a ditch. The channel is straight-sided and bounded by dry- laid stone walls. The stone is of various types and is not uniformly dressed. The purpose of the walls appears to contain flows, stabilize the banks, and prevent erosion. The channel exits the property to the southwest, where it passes under a fence and enters a culvert beneath the adjoining property. It is bridged at several places by nonhistoric wood bridges, metal pipes, and scrap lumber. The channel appears to have been an aesthetic and functional feature of the property and was probably used for irrigation long after the house was hooked up to municipal water in the 1940s. DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS a) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The historic resource evaluation (VerPlanck 2013) found that 1715 Elm Street appears eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 1 (Events) and Criterion 3 (Design/Construction), as a very early residential property in the city and as a property closely associated with El Cerrito’s Little Italy. The property is clearly a rare remnant of El Cerrito’s pioneer period, which ended in 1906. The house on the property is the third-oldest building in El Cerrito, and assessor’s parcel data indicates that there are only seven more extant buildings in El Cerrito built between 1900 and 1906, meaning that there are only 11 known properties in El Cerrito dating from the city’s pioneer period. The evaluation also found that the property is significant for its association with El Cerrito’s Little Italy, a once-thriving immigrant enclave centered at the intersection of San Pablo and Potrero avenues. The proposed project would relocate and rehabilitate the Rodoni house. Though it would be moved, it would remain on the same property, and the California Register allows for buildings to be moved if it will result in their being saved. According to Section 15126.4(b)(1) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA Guidelines): “Where maintenance, repair, stabilization, rehabilitation, restoration, preservation, conservation or reconstruction of the historical resource will be conducted in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings, the project’s impact on the historical resource will generally be considered mitigated below a level of significance and thus is not significant.” Because the proposed project would likely have a substantial adverse effect on a potential historic resource, mitigation is required. Implementation of mitigation measure CULT-1 would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. b) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. While the project site has previously been disturbed, construction activities, such as construction of the subgrade components of the project, may uncover archeological resources. This would be a potentially significant impact. Implementation of mitigation measure CULT-2 would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. c) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. No fossils or evidence of exposed geomorphological features that typically contain fossils were evident on the project site, but that does not preclude the possibility of their existence below the ground surface. Because the proposed project could directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource, this is considered a potentially significant impact. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project January 2014 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 45 Implementation of the mitigation measure CULT-3 would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. d) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. It is not anticipated that any human remains would be encountered during construction at the project site. However, there is a possibility that previously unknown human remains could be disturbed or destroyed by project-related ground-disturbing activities. Adverse impacts to these unknown human remains would be a potentially significant impact. Implementation of mitigation measure CULT-4 would ensure that potential impacts to such resources are minimized. MITIGATION MEASURES CULT-1 Prior to any alterations of structures on the project site, the project applicant shall complete Historic American Building Survey (HABS) level documentation. Prior to occupancy of any structure on the project site, the applicant shall complete façade restoration, and salvage and reuse building materials and landscape features, as discussed below. a) The project applicant shall document the affected historical resource and its setting, in accordance with HABS. The intent is to preserve an accurate record of historic property that can be used in research and other preservation activities. To serve these purposes, the documentation must include information that permits assessment of its reliability. Generally, this includes:  Drawings: Select existing drawings, where available, should be photographed with large-format negatives or photographically reproduced on Mylar.  Photographs: Photographs with large-format negatives of exterior and interior views, or historic views, where available.  Written data: History and description in narrative or outline format. HABS material standards regarding reproducibility, durability, and size shall be met. Copies of the photographs and report shall be presented to repositories that are invested in archiving the history of El Cerrito. b) Restore the building façade, including windows, the historic wood trim around the doors and windows on the primary façade, and the door in the main entrance, as determined by documentation by either physical and/or documentary evidence to the extent documentation is available. If physical evidence is inconclusive or historic photographs are not available, comparable, intact properties built during the same period as the Rodoni house may be used to inform the appearance of the façade. Timing/Implementation: Prior to construction or demolition activities Enforcement/Monitoring: City of El Cerrito Planning Division CULT-2 In the event any archeological resources are encountered during construction, work within 100 feet of the find shall cease and a qualified paleontologist shall be ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project City of El Cerrito Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2014 46 contacted by the project applicant to determine whether the resource is significant. If the find is determined to be of significance, an excavation plan shall be created and resources shall be donated to an appropriate cultural center. All work products and plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to execution. Timing/Implementation: During construction Enforcement/Monitoring: City of El Cerrito Planning Division CULT-3 In the event paleontological resources are encountered during construction, the construction manager shall cease operation at the site of the discovery and immediately notify the City of El Cerrito Environmental & Development Services Department. The project applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist to provide an evaluation of the find and to prescribe mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. In considering any suggested mitigation proposed by the consulting paleontologist, the City of El Cerrito Environmental & Development Services Department shall determine whether avoidance is necessary and feasible in light of factors such as the nature of the find, project design, costs, and other considerations. If avoidance is unnecessary or infeasible, other appropriate measures data recovery) shall be instituted. Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while mitigation for paleontological resources is carried out. Timing/Implementation: During construction Enforcement/Monitoring: City of El Cerrito Planning Division CULT-4 If human remains are encountered during project construction, work within 100 feet of the remains shall be suspended immediately, and the City of El Cerrito Environmental & Development Services Department and the Contra Costa County Coroner shall be immediately notified. If the remains are determined by the County Coroner to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) shall be notified within 24 hours. A professional archaeologist with Native American burial experience shall conduct a field investigation of the specific site and consult with the Most Likely Descendant, if any, identified by the NAHC. As necessary, the archaeologist may provide professional assistance to the Most Likely Descendant, including the excavation and removal of the human remains. The City of El Cerrito Environmental & Development Services Department will be responsible for the approval of recommended mitigation, taking account of the provisions of state law, as set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e) and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The project applicant shall implement the approved mitigation, to be verified by the City of El Cerrito Environmental & Development Services Department, before the resumption of activities at the site where the remains were discovered. Timing/Implementation: During construction Enforcement/Monitoring: City of El Cerrito Planning Division ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project January 2014 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 47 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death, involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING REGIONAL GEOLOGY, FAULTING, AND SEISMICITY The project site is in the northern portion of the Coast Range geomorphic province of California, which is characterized by northwest-trending mountain ranges and valleys that generally parallel the major geologic structures, such as the San Andreas and Hayward faults. The Hayward fault is the active fault nearest to the project site, located approximately 1 mile east of the project site. The Hayward fault is a northwest-trending zone about 51 miles long, which extends from southeastern San Jose through the East Bay communities into San Pablo Bay. During historic times, well-documented surface creep has occurred along the Hayward fault at ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project City of El Cerrito Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2014 48 average rates ranging from about 0.14 to 0.35 inches per year. Beneath San Pablo Bay, the faulting probably steps right (east) to the Rodgers Creek fault. The geotechnical characteristics of a project site determine its potential for structural and safety hazards that could occur during construction and/or operation of a proposed project. The following discussion illustrates that the design-controllable aspects of building foundation support, protection from seismic ground motion, and soil or slope instability are governed by existing regulations of the State of California or the City of El Cerrito. These regulations require that project designs reduce potential adverse soils, geology, and seismicity effects to less than significant levels. Compliance with these regulations is required, not optional. Compliance must be demonstrated by the project applicant to have been incorporated in the project’s design before permits for project construction would be issued. Several large earthquakes have occurred in the region during historic times. These included several earthquakes on the Hayward fault as well as earthquakes on the San Andreas and Calaveras faults. These earthquakes ranged in Richter magnitude from 6.0 to 8.3. DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS a) i) Less Than Significant Impact. According to the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Maps published by the California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology (1982), the project site is not located within the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone for the Hayward fault. No mapped active fault traces traverse the project site. The project would have a less than significant impact. ii) Less Than Significant Impact. The entire San Francisco Bay Area is subject to periodic earthquake ground shaking. The potential for strong seismic shaking at the project site is high. Due to their close proximity and historical seismic activity, the Hayward/Rodgers Creek, San Andreas, and Concord/Green Valley faults present the highest potential for severe ground shaking. For example, the Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities in conjunction with the United States Geological Survey found that there was a 31 percent probability that a magnitude 6.7 or greater earthquake will occur on the Hayward-Rodgers Creek fault system in the next 30 years, a 21 percent probability that a magnitude 6.7 or greater earthquake will occur on the San Andreas fault, and a cumulative 63 percent probability that a magnitude 6.7 or greater earthquake will occur in the San Francisco Bay Region in the next 30 years (USGS 2008). The State of California provides minimum standards for structural design and site development through the California Building Code (CBC; California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 24, Part Each jurisdiction in the state may adopt its own building code based on the CBC. Local codes are permitted to be more stringent than Title 24, but, at a minimum, are required to meet all state standards and to enforce the regulations of the CBC. The City of El Cerrito has adopted the 2010 CBC as the basis for the City Building Code (see El Cerrito Municipal Code Section 16.02.010). The City’s enforcement of its Building Code ensures the project would be consistent with the CBC. State and local regulations require design-level geotechnical investigations for the foundations of any structure for human occupancy proposed at the project site, including specific recommendations to reduce or eliminate post-construction settlement. The design-level geotechnical investigation for the project would be reviewed by the ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project January 2014 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 49 City Department of Public Works for compliance with existing building codes and ordinances. The City would inspect the recommended site preparation activities. Before construction of the proposed project, the City Building Code requires a site- specific soils report that identifies any potentially unsuitable soil conditions (such as expansive, liquefiable, or compressive soils) that could be affected by ground shaking, and CBC Chapter 16 provides certain earthquake design standards that must be incorporated into project structures. The design for soil support of foundations must conform to the analysis and implementation criteria described in the Building Code. Compliance with the Building Code would ensure that the effects of seismic ground shaking would be less than significant. iii) Less Than Significant Impact. Liquefaction occurs when loose sand and silt that is saturated with water behaves like a liquid when shaken by a seismic event, potentially resulting in a loss of soil strength and settling or subsidence. In some instances, lateral movements of the ground surface can also occur as a result of liquefaction through a phenomenon known as lateral spreading. Liquefaction and lateral spreading can constitute a significant geologic hazard, causing damage to buildings and other site improvements. As noted above, the project would be required to incorporate recommendations made in the soils report to eliminate inappropriate soil conditions. Compliance with the design criteria described in the City’s Building Code for soil support of foundations would ensure that impacts related to ground failure would be less than significant. iv) Less Than Significant Impact. The topography of the project site is fairly level, and areas surrounding the project site do not have the potential for landslides. The likelihood of a landslide is low, and the impact is considered less than significant. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is not expected to create substantial erosion or contribute to loss of topsoil because the project site is nearly level, so the water erosion hazard is considered low. However, construction activities would disturb soils, which could lead to erosion. A stormwater pollution prevention plan will be prepared for the project, as are required by El Cerrito Municipal Code Chapter 8.40, Stormwater Management and Discharge Control, for projects requiring grading permits. The erosion control plan would detail erosion control measures for the site, and the would include best management practices (BMPs) to protect water quality due to stormwater runoff. Implementation of a would ensure a less than significant impact related to erosion. c) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed under Impact a, compliance with existing regulations in the CBC would ensure that impacts related to unstable soils would be less than significant. d) Less Than Significant Impact. Expansive soils typically contain clay minerals that can cause the soil to shrink and swell in response to changes in moisture and have the potential to damage improvements that are supported by them. As noted above, before construction of the proposed project, the City Building Code requires a site- specific soils report that identifies any potentially unsuitable soil conditions (such as expansive, liquefiable, or compressive soils) that could be affected by ground shaking. In addition, CBC Chapter 16 provides certain earthquake design standards that must be incorporated into project structures. The design for soil support of foundations must conform to the analysis and implementation criteria described in the Building Code. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project City of El Cerrito Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2014 50 Compliance with the Building Code would ensure that the effects of expansive soils would be less than significant. e) No Impact. Public utilities, including sewer service, are provided to the project site by the City of El Cerrito. No septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would be utilized. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project January 2014 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 51 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Since the early 1990s, scientific consensus holds that the world’s population is releasing greenhouse gases (GHG) faster than the earth’s natural systems can absorb them. These gases are released as byproducts of fossil fuel combustion, waste disposal, energy use, land-use changes, and other human activities. This release of gases, such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and chlorofluorocarbons, creates a blanket around the earth that allows light to pass through but traps heat at the surface preventing its escape into space. While this is a naturally occurring process known as the greenhouse effect, human activities have accelerated the generation of GHGs beyond natural levels. The overabundance of GHGs in the atmosphere has led to an unexpected warming of the earth and has the potential to severely impact the earth’s climate system. While often used interchangeably, there is a difference between the terms “climate change” and “global warming.” According to the National Academy of Sciences, climate change refers to any significant, measurable change of climate lasting for an extended period of time that can be caused by both natural factors and human activities. Global warming, on the other hand, is an average increase in the temperature of the atmosphere caused by increased GHG emissions. The use of the term climate change is becoming more prevalent because it encompasses all changes to the climate, not just temperature. To fully understand global climate change, it is important to recognize the naturally occurring greenhouse effect and to define the GHGs that contribute to this phenomenon. Solar radiation enters the earth’s atmosphere from space and a portion of the radiation is absorbed by the earth’s surface. The earth emits this radiation back toward space, but the properties of the radiation change from high-frequency solar radiation to lower-frequency infrared radiation. GHGs, which are transparent to solar radiation, are effective in absorbing infrared radiation. As a result, this radiation that otherwise would have escaped back into space is now retained, resulting in a warming of the atmosphere. This phenomenon is known as the greenhouse effect. For most nonindustrial development projects, motor vehicles make up the bulk of GHG emissions produced on an operational basis. The primary GHGs emitted by motor vehicles include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons (CARB 2004). Table 5 provides descriptions of the primary GHGs attributed to global climate change, including a description of their physical properties, primary sources, and contribution to the greenhouse effect. Because the project site is currently unoccupied, it does not generate GHGs. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project City of El Cerrito Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2014 52 TABLE 5 GREENHOUSE GASES Greenhouse Gas Description Carbon dioxide (CO2) CO2 is a colorless, odorless gas and is emitted in a number of ways, both naturally and through human activities. The largest source of CO2 emissions globally is the combustion of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and gas in power plants, automobiles, industrial facilities, and other sources. A number of industrial production processes and product uses such as mineral production, metal production, and the use of petroleum- based products can also lead to CO2 emissions. The atmospheric lifetime of CO2 is variable because it is so readily exchanged in the atmosphere.1 Methane (CH4) CH4 is a colorless, odorless gas that is not flammable under most circumstances. CH4 is the major component of natural gas, about 87 percent by volume. It is also formed and released to the atmosphere by biological processes occurring in anaerobic environments. CH4 is emitted from both human-related and natural sources. Human- related sources include fossil fuel production, animal husbandry (livestock intestinal fermentation and manure management), biomass burning, and waste management. These activities release significant quantities of CH4 to the atmosphere. Natural sources of CH4 include wetlands, gas hydrates, permafrost, termites, oceans, freshwater bodies, non-wetland soils, and other sources such as wildfires. Methane‘s atmospheric lifetime is about 12 years.2 Nitrous oxide (N2O) N2O is a clear, colorless gas with a sweet odor. N2O is produced by natural and human-related sources. Primary human-related sources are agricultural soil management, animal manure management, sewage treatment, mobile and stationary combustion of fossil fuels, adipic acid production, and nitric acid production. N2O is also produced naturally from a wide variety of biological sources in soil and water, particularly microbial action in wet tropical forests. The atmospheric lifetime of N2O is approximately 120 years.3 Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) HFCs are man-made chemicals, many of which have been developed as alternatives to ozone-depleting substances for industrial, commercial, and consumer products. The atmospheric lifetime for HFCs varies from just over a year for HFC-152a to 260 years for HFC-23. Most of the commercially used HFCs have atmospheric lifetimes less than 15 years HFC-134a, which is used in automobile air conditioning and refrigeration).4 Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) PFCs are colorless, highly dense, chemically inert, and nontoxic. There are seven PFC gases: perfluoromethane (CF4), perfluoroethane (C2F6), perfluoropropane (C3F8), perfluorobutane (C4F10), perfluorocyclobutane (C4F8), perfluoropentane (C5F12), and perfluorohexane (C6F14). The largest current source is aluminum production, which releases CF4 and C2F6 as byproducts. The estimated atmospheric lifetimes for CF4 and C2F6 are 50,000 and 10,000 years, respectively.4,5 Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) SF6 is an inorganic compound that is colorless, odorless, nontoxic, generally nonflammable, and is primarily used as an electrical insulator in high voltage equipment. The electric power industry uses roughly 80 percent of all SF6 produced worldwide. Significant leaks occur from aging equipment and during equipment maintenance and servicing. SF6 has an atmospheric life of 3,200 years.4 Sources: 1EPA 2011a, 2EPA 2011b, 3EPA 2010a, 4EPA 2010b, 5EFCTC 2003 Each GHG differs in its ability to absorb heat in the atmosphere based on the lifetime, or persistence, of the gas molecule in the atmosphere. Gases with high global warming potential (GWP), such as HFCs, PFCs, and SF6, are the most heat-absorbent. Methane (CH4) traps over 21 times more heat per molecule than CO2, and N2O absorbs 310 times more heat per molecule than CO2. Often, estimates of GHG emissions are presented in carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e), which weight each gas by its GWP. Expressing GHG emissions in carbon dioxide equivalents takes the contribution of all GHG emissions to the greenhouse effect and converts ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project January 2014 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 53 them to a single unit equivalent to the effect that would occur if only CO2 were being emitted. Table 6 shows the GWP for different GHGs for a 100-year time horizon. TABLE 6 GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL FOR GREENHOUSE GASES Greenhouse Gas Global Warming Potential Carbon dioxide (CO2) 1 Methane (CH4) 21 Nitrous oxide (N2O) 310 Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) 6,500 Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) 23,900 Source: California Climate Action Registry 2009 DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS a) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. GHG emissions contribute, on a cumulative basis, to the significant adverse environmental impacts of global climate change. No single project could generate enough GHG emissions to noticeably change the global average temperature. The combination of GHG emissions from past, present, and future projects contributes substantially to the phenomenon of global climate change and its associated environmental impacts and as such is addressed only as a cumulative impact. GHG emissions associated with the project would occur over the short term from construction activities, consisting primarily of emissions from equipment exhaust. There would also be long-term regional emissions associated with project-related new vehicular trips and indirect source emissions, such as electricity usage for lighting. Construction Emissions The BAAQMD does not have an adopted threshold of significance for construction- related GHG emissions. However, the BAAQMD recommends quantification and disclosure of GHG emissions that would occur during construction, in addition to making a determination on the significance of these construction-generated GHG emissions impacts in relation to meeting Assembly Bill (AB) 32 GHG reduction goals. AB 32 is the California Global Warming Solutions Act, enacted by the State Legislature in September 2006. AB 32 requires the reduction of statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. As shown in Table 7, the construction of the proposed project would result in a maximum of 135 metric tons per year of construction-generated CO2e over an estimated one-year construction period. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project City of El Cerrito Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2014 54 TABLE 7 CONSTRUCTION-RELATED GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS – METRIC TONS PER YEAR Construction Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Methane (CH4) Nitrous Oxide (N2O) CO2e Construction 134 0.03 0.00 135 Source: Emissions modeled by PMC using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2013.2.2 computer program. Notes: Proposed rehabilitation of existing single-family unit assumed to be completely reconstructed for conservative analysis. Refer to Appendix B for model data outputs. In addition to quantifying construction-generated GHG emissions, the BAAQMD recommends that all construction projects incorporate best management practices minimizing GHG emissions. To ensure that best management practices are incorporated into the project, the proposed project will be required to implement mitigation measure GHG-1. Implementation of mitigation measure GHG-1 would reduce the incremental emissions from project construction. Additionally, mitigation measure AQ-1, included in subsection 3, Air Quality, would further reduce the emissions of heavy-duty diesel-powered equipment during construction. Implementation of these measures would minimize construction- related GHG emissions to the extent feasible, consistent with AB 32 greenhouse gas reduction goals, and would therefore result in a less than significant impact. Operational Emissions For GHG emissions resulting from project operations after construction, the BAAQMD threshold of significance applicable to the project is whether the project would exceed 1,100 metric tons per year of CO2e. The projected annual GHG emissions resulting from operation of the proposed project are summarized in Table 8. TABLE 8 OPERATIONAL GHG EMISSIONS – METRIC TONS PER YEAR Source CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Area 1 0.00 0.00 1 Energy 40 0.00 0.00 40 Mobile 98 0.00 0.00 98 Solid Waste 2 0.09 0.00 4 Water 2 0.03 0.00 3 Total 143 0.13 0.00 146 BAAQMD Threshold 1,100 Source: CalEEMod version 2013.2.2. Refer to Appendix B for model data outputs. As shown in the table, the proposed project would be far below BAAQMD significance thresholds for operational GHG emissions and would result in less than significant GHG impacts. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project January 2014 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 55 b) Less Than Significant Impact. California has adopted several policies and regulations for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. On December 11, 2008, the California Air Resources Board adopted the AB 32 Scoping Plan to achieve the goals of AB 32, mentioned above. The Scoping Plan establishes an overall framework for the measures that will be adopted to reduce California’s GHG emissions. The proposed project is subject to compliance with AB 32, which is designed to reduce statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. As identified above, the project-generated GHG emissions would not surpass the BAAQMD greenhouse gas significance thresholds, which were prepared with the purpose of complying with the requirements of and achieving the goals of AB 32. Therefore, the project would not conflict with the state goals listed in AB 32 or in any preceding state policies adopted to reduce GHG emissions. In addition, on May 21, 2013, the El Cerrito City Council adopted the El Cerrito Climate Action Plan and associated targets to reduce GHG emissions by 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2035 (City of El Cerrito 2013). Some of the primary provisions of the Climate Action Plan are to promote greater density and infill development, water conservation, energy efficiency, and waste reduction strategies. No aspects of the proposed project would inhibit these goals. The proposed project would not be considered to conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHG emissions and therefore represents a less than significant impact. MITIGATION MEASURES GHG-1 Prior to issuance of grading or building permits, the project applicant shall specify on the final project plans implementation of BAAQMD-recommended construction-related measures to reduce GHG emissions during construction activities. These measures include, as feasible: 1. Use alternative-fueled biodiesel, electric) construction vehicles and equipment to the maximum extent possible. 2. Use local construction materials (within 100 miles) to the maximum extent possible. 3. Recycle construction waste and demolition materials to the maximum extent possible. Timing/Implementation: Prior to grading permits Enforcement/Monitoring: City of El Cerrito Planning Division ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project City of El Cerrito Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2014 56 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan area or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or a public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Under Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), the term “hazardous substance” refers to both hazardous materials and hazardous wastes. Both of these are classified according to four properties: toxicity, ignitability, corrosiveness, and reactivity (CCR Title 22, Chapter 11, Article A hazardous material is defined as a substance or combination of substances that ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project January 2014 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 57 may cause or significantly contribute to an increase in serious, irreversible, or incapacitating illness, or may pose a substantial presence or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of, or otherwise managed. Hazardous wastes are hazardous substances that no longer have practical use, such as materials that have been discarded, discharged, spilled, or contaminated or are being stored until they can be disposed of properly (CCR Title 22, Chapter 11, Article 2, Section 66261.10). Soil that is excavated from a site containing hazardous materials is a hazardous waste if it exceeds specific CCR Title 22 criteria. While hazardous substances are regulated by multiple agencies, cleanup requirements of hazardous wastes are determined on a case-by-case basis according to the agency with lead jurisdiction over the project. Public health is potentially at risk whenever hazardous materials are or would be used. It is necessary to differentiate between the “hazard” of these materials and the acceptability of the “risk” they pose to human health and the environment. A hazard is any situation that has the potential to cause damage to human health and the environment. The risk to health and public safety is determined by the probability of exposure, in addition to the inherent toxicity of a material. Factors that can influence the health effects when human beings are exposed to hazardous materials include the dose the person is exposed to, the frequency of exposure, the duration of exposure, the exposure pathway (route by which a chemical enters a person’s body), and the individual’s unique biological susceptibility. The project site is not on a parcel included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (DTSC 2012). The project site is not located within an airport land use plan area or within 2 miles of a public use airport or airstrip. DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS a) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or to the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Construction of the proposed project would be required to comply with applicable building, health, fire, and safety codes. Hazardous materials would be used in varying amounts during construction and occupancy of the project. Construction and maintenance activities would use hazardous materials such as fuels (gasoline and diesel), oils, and lubricants; paints and paint thinners; glues; cleaners (which could include solvents and corrosives in addition to soaps and detergents); and possibly pesticides and herbicides. The amount of materials used would be small, so the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or to the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, assuming such use complies with applicable federal, state, and local regulations, including but not limited to Titles 8 and 22 of the CCR, the Uniform Fire Code, and Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code. With respect to operation of the project, residential uses do not generate significant amounts of hazardous materials, and only a minimal amount of routine household chemicals would be stored on-site. These materials would not create a significant hazard to the public or to the environment. b) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in Impacts a and c, the proposed project would not result in the routine transport, use, disposal, handling, or emission of any hazardous materials that would create a significant hazard to the public or to the ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project City of El Cerrito Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2014 58 environment. Implementation of Title 49, Parts 171–180, of the Code of Federal Regulations would reduce any impacts associated with the potential for accidental release during construction or occupancy of the proposed project or by transporters picking up or delivering hazardous materials to the project site. These regulations establish standards by which hazardous materials would be transported, within and adjacent to the proposed project. Where transport of these materials occurs on roads, the California Highway Patrol is the responsible agency for enforcement of regulations. The project also includes renovations to the existing house, which, given the age of the structure, could contain asbestos and lead. Asbestos, a naturally occurring fibrous material, was used as a fireproofing and insulating agent in building construction before being banned by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the 1970s. Because it was widely used prior to discovery of its negative health effects, asbestos can be found in a variety of building materials and components including sprayed-on acoustic ceiling materials, thermal insulation, wall and ceiling texture, floor tiles, and pipe insulation. Asbestos is classified into two main categories: friable and non-friable. Friable asbestos can release asbestos fibers easily when disturbed and is considered Regulated Asbestos- Containing Material (RACM). Friable (easily crumbled) materials are particularly hazardous because inhalation of airborne fibers is the primary mode of asbestos entry into the body, which potentially causes lung cancer and asbestosis. Non-friable asbestos will release fibers less readily than RACM and is referred to as Category I or Category II, non-friable. Non-friable asbestos and encapsulated friable asbestos do not pose substantial health risks. The California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) considers asbestos-containing building materials (ACBM) to be hazardous when a sample contains more than 0.1 percent asbestos by weight; Cal/OSHA requires it to be handled by a licensed, qualified contractor. Lead can be found in paint, water pipes, plumbing solder, and in soils around buildings and structures with lead-based paint. In 1978, the federal government required the reduction of lead in house paint to less than 0.06 percent (600 parts per million [ppm]). However, some paints manufactured after 1978 for industrial uses or marine uses legally contain more than 0.06 percent lead. Exposure to lead can result in bioaccumulation of lead in the blood, soft tissues, and bones. Children are particularly susceptible to potential lead-related health problems because lead is easily absorbed into developing systems and organs. Prior to any building demolition, CCR Title 8 Section 5208 requires that a state-certified risk assessor conduct a risk assessment and/or paint inspection of all structures constructed prior to 1978 for the presence of asbestos. If such hazards are determined to exist on site, the risk assessor would prepare a site-specific hazard control plan detailing ACBM removal methods and specific instructions for providing protective clothing and gear for abatement personnel. If necessary, the project sponsor would be required to retain a state-certified ACBM removal contractor (independent of the risk assessor) to conduct the appropriate abatement measures as required by the plan. Wastes from abatement and demolition activities would be disposed of at a landfill(s) licensed to accept such waste. Once all abatement measures have been implemented, the risk assessor would conduct a clearance examination and provide written documentation to the City that testing and abatement have been completed in accordance with all federal, state, and local laws and regulations. Several regulations and guidelines pertain to abatement of and protection from exposure to lead-based paint. These include Construction Safety Order 1532.1 from Title 8 ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project January 2014 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 59 of the CCR and lead-based paint exposure guidelines provided by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). In California, lead-based paint abatement must be performed and monitored by contractors with appropriate certification from the California Department of Health Services. Compliance with existing regulation would ensure impacts related to hazardous materials exposure would be less than significant. c) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is a residential lot and is adjacent to two existing schools. As discussed in Impacts a and b, the proposed project is a residential use that would not result in the routine transport, use, disposal, handling, or emission of any hazardous materials that would create a significant hazard to the public or to the environment, including at an existing or proposed school. d) No Impact. The project site is not on a parcel included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (DTSC 2012). The closest listed site is located at 11450 San Pablo Avenue, approximately one-quarter mile west of the project site. That site is listed on the HAZNET database for the transfer of relatively small amounts of laboratory waste chemicals, as well as waste oil, oil-containing waste, oil/separator sludge, and organic and inorganic mixture. These materials were disposed of through a deposit at a recycler, transfer station, or incinerator. Additionally, that site was listed in the Contra Costa County Sites List, Cortese, and LUST databases due to a past leaking underground storage tank (LUST) event. Soils were reportedly impacted by gasoline, and the LUST cleanup case for the project was closed as of June 1998 (City of El Cerrito 2010). Therefore, the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or to the environment related to an existing hazardous materials site. e) No Impact. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan area or within 2 miles of a public use airport or airstrip. There are no private airstrips in the vicinity of the project site that would result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. f) No Impact. See discussion under Impact e above. g) Less Than Significant Impact. The project would be subject to the requirements contained in the City’s emergency response and evacuation plans. Therefore, impacts related to impaired implementation or physical interference with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan are considered less than significant. h) No Impact. The project site is located in El Cerrito and is not located within a wildland hazard area. The surrounding land is developed with urban and residential uses; the project site is not intermixed with wildlands. The proposed project will have no impact on the placement of people or structures next to wildland areas that could result in loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project City of El Cerrito Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2014 60 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of a failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project January 2014 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 61 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The project site is surrounded by existing development within El Cerrito. Surface runoff from the project site enters existing storm drains and is carried to San Francisco Bay through the storm drain system. The City of El Cerrito is a participant in the Contra Costa Clean Water Program which administers the County’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The which includes representatives of Contra Costa County, 19 incorporated cities in the county, and the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, maintains compliance with the NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit. The project would be subject to the County’s NPDES permit and would be required to implement certain measures to protect water quality and prevent erosion by minimizing sediment and other pollutants in site runoff and so that post-project runoff will not exceed pre-project rates and durations. The goal of Provision C.3 is to include appropriate source control, site design, and stormwater treatment measures in new development and adaptive reuse projects to address both soluble and insoluble stormwater runoff pollutant discharges and prevent increases in runoff flows from new development and adaptive reuse projects. Provision C.3 would reduce potential water quality impacts associated with the proposed project. The City of El Cerrito has adopted management guidelines to comply with the NPDES requirements, contained in Section 8.40.010 of the El Cerrito Municipal Code. As required by the Municipal Code, all construction must conform to the requirements of the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbooks for Construction Activities and New Development and Redevelopment, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Manual of Standards for Erosion & Sediment Control Measures, the City’s grading and erosion control ordinance, and other generally accepted engineering practices for erosion control as required by the Public Works Director when undertaking construction activities. In addition, El Cerrito Municipal Code Section 8.40.050 states that every application for a development project is required to submit a stormwater control plan that meets the criteria in the most recent version of the Contra Costa Clean Water Program Stormwater C.3 Guidebook. DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS a) Less Than Significant Impact. Project construction activities would disturb project soils that could result in sedimentation that reaches the storm sewer. However, as noted above, project construction activities would be required to comply with the County’s NPDES permit and El Cerrito Municipal Code Chapter 8.40, Stormwater Management and Discharge Control, which require projects to conform with the requirements of the CASQA Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbooks for Construction Activities and New Development and Redevelopment, the ABAG Manual of Standards for Erosion & Sediment Control Measures, the City’s grading and erosion control ordinance and other generally accepted engineering practices for erosion control. Consequently, project construction would not be considered to contribute to a violation of water quality standards, and project operations would have a less than significant impact regarding the generation of substantial additional sources of polluted runoff that would contribute to a water quality violation. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not use local groundwater supplies, but would be connected to existing water infrastructure on-site, which is supplied by the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD). EBMUD’s primary water supply is surface water from the Mokelumne River. Therefore, operation of the proposed project ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project City of El Cerrito Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2014 62 would not increase demand for groundwater supplies. Implementation of the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on groundwater supplies and groundwater recharge. c) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would increase the amount of impervious surface on the project site. However, as noted above, the proposed project would be required to comply with Provision C.3 of the County’s NPDES permit, which requires projects to implement certain measures to protect water quality and prevent erosion by minimizing sediment and other pollutants in site runoff. Compliance with existing regulations and the NPDES permit would ensure that the project would not result in substantial erosion or siltation. d) Less Than Significant Impact. Prior to issuance of a building permit, El Cerrito Municipal Code Section 13.40.045 requires the project applicant to provide plans and specifications that consider factors such as slope, soil conditions, and amount of vegetation in the drainage basin, and the impact on anticipated percolation or infiltration rates, including the effect of successive storms on soil saturation and the resultant ability of the drain, as modified, to accommodate anticipated surface runoff flows. In issuing the permit, the City Manager may impose such conditions as are appropriate to eliminate any diminution in the capacity of the existing drain to carry off the volume of water reasonably anticipated. This would ensure that the proposed project would not exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. Therefore, the proposed project would not cause on- or off-site flooding. e) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in Impact d, with implementation of El Cerrito Municipal Code Section 13.40.045, the project would not negatively affect the capacity of the existing drain to carry off the volume of water reasonably anticipated for the project. Consequently, compliance with existing regulations would ensure that the proposed project would not exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or generate substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. f) Less Than Significant Impact. See discussion under Impacts a and c above. The proposed project would have a less than significant impact with regard to substantial degradation of water quality. g) No Impact. The project site is not within a 100-year flood hazard zone. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not place any housing within a flood hazard area. h) No Impact. The project site is not within 100-year flood hazard zone. Therefore, the proposed project would not place any structures within a flood hazard area in a manner that would impede or redirect flood flows. i) No Impact. The project site is not in the vicinity of a levee and is not within the areas indicated by the Association of Bay Area Governments as a potential inundation area resulting from dam failure (ABAG 1995). j) Less Than Significant Impact. A seiche is a periodic oscillation of a body of water such as a reservoir resulting from seismic shaking or other causes such as landslides. A tsunami is a series of waves caused by earthquakes that occur on the seafloor or in coastal areas. A mudflow is a flow of dirt and debris that occurs after intense rainfall or snowmelt, volcanic eruption, earthquake, or severe wildfire. The project site is not located near any ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project January 2014 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 63 reservoirs or other enclosed bodies of water capable of seiche and is located inland of the zones such as the margins of San Francisco Bay that could be inundated by a tsunami. The topography of the site is fairly level, and the likelihood of mudflow or landslide is low. Impacts related to potential inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow are considered less than significant. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project City of El Cerrito Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2014 64 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The project site is surrounded by existing development in El Cerrito. The project site is designated in the El Cerrito General Plan for High Density Residential and is zoned RM, Multi-family Residential. The purpose of the High Density Residential land use designation and Multi-family Residential zoning is to provide opportunities for multi-family residential development in a well- designed environment at a density of 21 to 35 dwelling units per net acre. This project will require the approval of General Plan Amendment to construct to its proposed density of 35.7 dwelling units per acre. Although denser than typically allowed in it’s General Plan designation, through the use of the Planned Unit overlay, the project proposes to exceed the minimum required amount of open space, preserve the existing creek, and retain the historic main structure all currently on site. As discussed throughout this Initial Study, the slight increase in density beyond that allowed in the High Density Residential land use designation would not result in any significant physical environmental effects. DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS a) No Impact. The project site is an existing residential parcel surrounded by existing development in El Cerrito. Development of the project site would not result in the physical division of an established community. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is consistent with many goals of the General Plan as well as Climate Action Plan. If the proposed entitlements, including the Planned Development District and General Plan Amendment, are approved, the project will also be consistent with the Municipal Code. The applicant is requesting relief from the following development standards: 1. Height standards described in the Municipal Code Chapter 19.06 for residential districts. 2. Setback standards described in Municipal Code Chapter 19.06 for residential districts. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project January 2014 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 65 3. Setback standards described in Municipal Code Chapter 19.12 for the CP (Creek Protection) overlay district. 4. Parking requirements described in Municipal Code Chapter 19.24 for off-street parking. 5. Density standards described in Municipal Code Chapter 19.06. The code allows for one residential unit per every 1,250 square feet; the project proposes one unit per every 1,220 square feet. 6. General Plan Amendment to exceed the maximum high density designation for market priced housing. As noted above, the project proponent is requesting a PD district designation. The City Council may approve a Planned Development district that deviates from the minimum lot area, yard requirements, building heights, other physical development standards, and land use and density requirements of other zoning districts. The specific purpose of a Planned Development district is to provide for detailed review of development that warrants special review and deviations from the existing development standards. This district is also intended to provide opportunities for creative development approaches and standards that will achieve superior community design, environmental preservation and public benefit, in comparison to subdivision and development under district regulations. The requested changes to the development standards, if approved, would be consistent with Chapter 19.14 of the Municipal Code and, as discussed throughout this Initial Study, would not result in any significant physical impacts. c) No Impact. As discussed in subsection 4, Biological Resources, the proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project City of El Cerrito Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2014 66 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 11. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The project site is surrounded by existing development in El Cerrito. The project site has not been historically used for mining operations. DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS a, b) No Impact. No known mineral resources are present at the project site. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. The project site is not designated by the general plan, specific plan, or other land use plans as a locally important mineral recovery site. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project January 2014 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 67 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 12. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or of applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan area or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or a public use airport, exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The project is located in a residential area of El Cerrito. Noise is generally restricted to traffic on local streets. Construction activities on the project site will generate noise that could disturb adjacent residences. According to City Municipal Code Section 19.21.050, the goal for maximum outdoor noise levels in residential areas is an Ldn (day-night level) of 60 decibels (dB). Section 16.02.080(b) of the City’s Municipal Code limits the hours of work to between 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM Monday through Friday, and between 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM on Saturday. Construction work is prohibited on Sundays and holidays. DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS a) Less Than Significant Impact. Noise generated by the project would occur during short- term construction of the proposed units. Operation of the project would be consistent with the existing uses in the vicinity of the project site and would not result in substantial changes to the existing noise environment. Noise levels during construction would be higher than existing noise levels, but only for the duration of construction. Noise levels from construction activities could average from 76 to 90 dBA within 50 feet of the noisiest ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project City of El Cerrito Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2014 68 source and would be audible to residents in proximity to the proposed project. However, as noted above, construction activities are regulated by the El Cerrito Municipal Code, which restricts construction work hours to 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM Monday through Friday, and 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM on Saturday, prohibiting construction work on Sundays and holidays. While there would be intermittent construction noise in the project area during the construction period, because the construction would be short term and restricted to the hours allowed by the City’s ordinance, noise impacts would be less than significant. b) Less Than Significant Impact. Long-term operational activities associated with the proposed project would be residential, which would not involve the use of any equipment or processes that would result in potentially significant levels of ground vibration. Increases in groundborne vibration levels attributable to the proposed project would be primarily associated with short-term construction-related activities. Construction activities would likely require the use of various types of equipment, such as forklifts, concrete mixers, and haul trucks. The use of major groundborne vibration-generating construction equipment, such as pile drivers, would not be required for this project. Groundborne vibration levels associated with representative construction equipment are summarized in Table 9. Based on the vibration levels presented in Table 9, ground vibration generated by construction equipment would not be anticipated to exceed approximately 0.076 inches per second peak particle velocity (ppv) at 25 feet. Predicted vibration levels at the nearest on- and off-site structures would not be anticipated to exceed the minimum recommended criteria for structural damage and human annoyance (0.2 and 0.1 inches per second ppv, respectively). As a result, this potential impact would be considered less than significant. TABLE 9 REPRESENTATIVE VIBRATION SOURCE LEVELS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT Equipment Peak Particle Velocity at 25 Feet (in/sec) Loaded Trucks 0.076 Jackhammer 0.035 Small Bulldozers/Tractors 0.003 Source: FTA 2006, Table 12-2. c) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed above, long-term operation of the project involves residential use, which is consistent with existing uses in the project vicinity. Residential uses would not result in substantial changes to the existing noise environment. d) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in Impact a, short-term construction-related activities could result in a temporary increase in ambient noise levels at nearby receptors. However, compliance with Section 16.02.080(b) of the City’s Municipal Code, which limits the hours of construction to daytime hours outside normal sleep hours, would ensure that potential impacts would be less than significant. e, f) No Impact. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan area or within 2 miles of a public use airport or private airstrip. Implementation of the proposed project would not expose individuals to excessive noise levels associated with aircraft operations. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project January 2014 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 69 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 13. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The estimated population of El Cerrito in 2010 was 23,549 with 10,716 housing units, 10,142 of which are occupied (MTC 2012). This yields an average household size of 2.3 persons. Assuming the city’s average household size, the proposed project would result in the addition of approximately 35 residents to the area. DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS a) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project includes construction of residential units that would directly add to the population of the city. The 35 residents added by the project would not be considered substantial, when considering the project area is currently developed and the project would utilize existing infrastructure at the project site. No upgrades to the existing infrastructure would be required to serve the project. The proposed project would not involve any other components that would induce further growth. b) No Impact. There is an existing, unoccupied house on the project site that would be retained as part of the project. The proposed project would not displace housing units at the project site or necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. c) No Impact. There is an existing house on the project site, which as noted above, is unoccupied. Therefore, the proposed project would not displace substantial numbers of people or necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project City of El Cerrito Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2014 70 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the following public services: a) Fire protection? b) Police protection? c) Schools? d) Parks? e) Other public facilities? ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The project site is surrounded by existing development within El Cerrito. The project site is served by the El Cerrito Fire Department, El Cerrito Police Department, and West Contra Costa Unified School District (WCCUSD). FIRE PROTECTION The project site is located in an urban area of El Cerrito in an area currently served by the El Cerrito Fire Department. The department would continue to serve the project site. The department operates three fire stations: Station 71, located at 10900 San Pablo Avenue; Station 72, located at 1520 Arlington Boulevard; and Station 65, located at 217 Arlington Avenue in Kensington. Station 71 is the closest station to the project site, approximately 1 mile to the southwest. The City also has a mutual aid agreement with the Richmond, Kensington, and West County fire departments to provide service across jurisdictional boundaries. POLICE PROTECTION The project site is currently served by the El Cerrito Police Department and would continue to be served by the department. The El Cerrito Police headquarters building is located at 10900 San Pablo Avenue, approximately 1 mile from the project site. SCHOOLS The WCCUSD operates 57 schools serving the communities of El Cerrito, San Pablo, Richmond, Pinole, Kensington, Hercules, and El Sobrante. The district comprises 38 elementary (K–5) and six middle schools seven high schools, and six alternative schools and continuing education facilities. The project site is within the attendance boundary of Madera Elementary School, Portola Middle School, and El Cerrito High School (WCCUSD 2012). Senate Bill (SB) 50, which revised the limitation on developer fees for school facilities, established a base amount of allowable developer fees (Level One fee) for residential construction (subject to adjustment) and prohibits school districts, cities, and counties from imposing school impact ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project January 2014 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 71 mitigation fees or other requirements in excess or in addition to those provided in the statute. Satisfaction of the Proposition SB 50 statutory requirements by a developer is deemed to be “full and complete mitigation.” The proposed project would be required to pay the statutory fees. PARKS The El Cerrito General Plan identifies the city as having a total of 182 acres of parks and open space, including 32 acres of publicly owned parks, 100 acres of public open space, 23 acres of recreation facilities, and 27 acres of school district–owned recreation areas. The General Plan identifies a level of service standard of 5 acres of publicly owned parkland per 1,000 residents. Based on an estimated city population of 23,549, the City of El Cerrito has approximately 7.7 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. All residential projects would be required to provide on-site open space and recreational facilities for residents or a combination of in-lieu fees and on-site facilities. DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS a) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project site is served by the El Cerrito Fire Department. Implementation of the proposed project would increase the intensity of use of the site and would marginally increase the demand for fire protection services over existing conditions. However, the project would be similar to the land use on surrounding properties, and the site is already served by the City for fire protection. The project would not substantially alter the number of housing units or population in the city and would not result in the need for new fire protection facilities to serve the site. There would be no physical impacts related to the construction of new fire protection facilities and impacts related to fire protection would be less than significant. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is served by the El Cerrito Police Department for police protection services. The redevelopment of the site would not result in the need for increased patrols or additional units such that new police facilities would need to be constructed. There would be no physical impacts related to the construction of new police facilities, and impacts related to police protection would be less than significant. c) Less Than Significant Impact. Consistent with SB 50, the proposed project will be required to pay developer fees to the WCCUSD. These fees would be directed toward maintaining adequate service levels, which include incremental increases in school capacities. Implementation of this state fee system would ensure that any significant impacts to schools which could result from the proposed project would be offset by development fees, and in effect, reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. Assuming student generation rates per multi-family unit of 0.105 for grades K–5, 0.026 for grades 6–8, and 0.013 for grades 9–12, the project would generate approximately two students total. The additional two students generated by the project would not result in substantial physical impacts at any schools serving the project. d) Less Than Significant Impact. As noted above, the proposed project would generate a population of approximately 35 residents who would use existing parks. Because the proposed project would result in a very minor increase in population relative to the city’s existing population, significant deterioration or accelerated deterioration at parks and recreation-oriented public facilities from possible increased usage is not expected. The proposed project would have a less than significant impact on parks. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project City of El Cerrito Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2014 72 e) Less Than Significant Impact. As noted above, because the proposed project would result in a very minor increase in population relative to the city’s existing population, significant deterioration or accelerated deterioration of public facilities from possible increased usage is not expected. The proposed project would have a less than significant impact on public facilities. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project January 2014 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 73 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 15. RECREATION. a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities, or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The El Cerrito General Plan identifies the city as having a total of 182 acres of parks and open space including 32 acres of publicly owned parks, 100 acres of public open space, 23 acres of recreation facilities, and 27 acres of school district–owned recreation areas. The General Plan identifies a level of service standard of 5 acres of publicly owned parkland per 1,000 residents. Based on an estimated city population of 23,549, the City of El Cerrito has approximately 7.7 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. All residential projects would be required to provide on-site open space and recreational facilities for residents or a combination of in-lieu fees and on-site facilities. DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS a, b) Less Than Significant Impact. See discussion of Impact e in subsection 14, Public Services. Implementation of the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact on recreational facilities. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project City of El Cerrito Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2014 74 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to, level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads of highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ROADWAY SYSTEM Regional access to the project site is provided by Interstate 80 (I-80) and Interstate 580 (I-580), located west of the project site. Local access to the project site is provided by Elm Street, Richmond Street, Hill Street, Key Boulevard, Blake Street, and Potrero Avenue. All roadways in the immediate project vicinity serve primarily residential neighborhoods and have curbs, gutters, sidewalks, on-street parking, and maximum posted speed limits of 25 miles per hour. On-street parking is limited to four hours (except by residential permit) between 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM due to the close proximity of the El Cerrito del Norte BART station. The following describes the local roadways that would serve the project. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project January 2014 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 75  Elm Street. Within the study area, Elm Street is a two-lane, north–south discontinuous roadway extending from Cutting Boulevard on the north to Blake Street on the south. South of Blake Street, Elm Street restarts from a T-intersection with Blake Street one block west of the Elm Street/Richmond Street/Blake Street intersection and continues to Schmidt Lane on the south. Elm Street has a minimum width of 40 feet curb to curb. Parking along Elm Street is limited to four hours (except by residential permit) between 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM, with parking prohibited near driveways, fire hydrants, and intersections. The posted speed limit is 25 miles per hour, with a posted speed limit of 20 miles per hour near the project site as Elm Street curves to meet Richmond Street at Blake Street.  Richmond Street. Richmond Street is a two-lane, north–south roadway extending from Blake Street on the north to Fairmont Avenue on the south. On the northbound approach to the Elm Street/Richmond Street/Blake Street intersection, the posted speed limit on Richmond Street is reduced from 25 to 20 miles per hour as it curves to meet Elm Street at Blake Street.  Hill Street. Hill Street is a two-lane, east–west roadway extending from San Pablo Avenue on the west to Elm Street on the east. Hill Street fronts the south side of the El Cerrito del Norte BART station.  Key Boulevard. Key Boulevard is a two-lane, primarily north–south roadway extending from McLaughlin Street on the north to Elm Street on the south. Key Boulevard fronts the east side of the El Cerrito del Norte BART station.  Blake Street. Blake Street is a two-lane, east–west roadway extending from San Pablo Avenue on the west to Navellier Street on the east.  Potrero Avenue. Potrero Avenue is a two-lane, east–west roadway extending from Carlson Boulevard in Richmond on the west to Arlington Boulevard on the east. Potrero Avenue provides access to I-80. INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE A traffic impact study (TIS), which assumed development of 13 new units and rehabilitation of the existing house on the site (14 total units), was prepared for the project site in 2009. Kittelson & Associates reviewed the existing TIS to determine whether the analysis adequately reflects conditions that would occur with the project as proposed. Kittelson also conducted a trip generation analysis based on the latest data from the Institute of Transportation Engineers to verify assumptions made in the traffic impact analysis. Kittelson determined the project would result in 40 additional total daily trips and up to 5 additional peak-hour trips (total for AM and PM peak hours), which does not substantially differ from the 2009 analysis. Therefore, the key level of service (LOS) findings in the 2009 study are applicable to the current project despite changes in project land use, trip generation reference updates, analysis methodologies, and economic conditions (Kittelson 2013). Weekday AM and PM peak-period volumes in the study area were collected in October 2009 following submittal of the project application to the City. The study also incorporates an increase in students and teachers at the Windrush School, based on the 2007 approval by the City of El Cerrito Planning Commission of an amendment to the Windrush School’s use permit to increase their student body and for their 20-year master plan. The counts are considered by the City to accurately depict existing conditions in the project vicinity, given the lack of growth due to the ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project City of El Cerrito Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2014 76 economic downturn (Kittelson 2013). This is borne out in the cumulative analysis, which shows that even under buildout conditions, the counts do not change substantially from the counts collected in 2009. Table 10 presents the results of the existing LOS analysis for signalized and unsignalized intersections. Data from three study intersections show current operations at acceptable levels of service during weekday AM and PM peak-hour time frames. Table 11 presents the results of the existing plus project intersection LOS analysis from the 2009 study, which shows the proposed project would result in no change to the peak-hour LOS and would have a minimal effect on delays. The addition of five vehicle trips during each peak hour would not likely reduce the level of service to below the City’s standard of LOS D (Kittelson 2013). All of the study intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable levels of service during all peak-hour scenarios. TABLE 10 EXISTING INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY Intersection Existing Weekday AM Peak Hour Existing Weekday PM Peak Hour Delay LOS Delay LOS Signalized Elm Street/Hill Street/Key Boulevard 24.8 C 22.2 C AWSC Elm Street/Richmond Street/Blake Street 11.5 B 11.4 B Signalized Richmond Avenue/Potrero Avenue 13.9 B 13.6 B Source: PMC 2009 TABLE 11 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY Intersection Existing Plus Project Weekday AM Peak Hour Existing Plus Project Weekday PM Peak Hour Delay LOS Delay LOS Signalized Elm Street/Hill Street/Key Boulevard 24.8 C 22.3 C AWSC Elm Street/Richmond Street/Blake Street 11.6 B 11.4 B Signalized Richmond Avenue/Potrero Avenue 13.9 B 13.6 B Source: PMC 2009 CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS Cumulative conditions represent the year 2025 conditions at study intersections. Cumulative conditions traffic volumes were derived by adding 0.5 percent per year growth to existing volumes and incorporating traffic from proposed and approved development projects in the vicinity of the project site. The expansion of the Windrush School from 250 to 330 students and the redevelopment of the former Target store (11450 San Pablo Avenue) to a Safeway and other ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project January 2014 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 77 on-site retail stores were also considered in the cumulative conditions for the project traffic study.1 CUMULATIVE PEAK-HOUR INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE Table 12 presents the results of the 2009 cumulative surrounding projects plus ambient traffic growth) intersection LOS analysis. All of the study intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable levels of service during all peak-hour scenarios under the cumulative without project condition. It should be noted that for future scenarios cumulative, cumulative plus project), all intersection geometrics are the same as under existing conditions. Cumulative plus project weekday and weekend PM peak-hour volumes were determined by adding the project trip assignment to the cumulative volumes. No changes in intersection geometrics were assumed. Table 13 presents the results of the cumulative plus project intersection LOS analysis. The 2009 study found all of the study intersections would operate at acceptable levels of service during all peak-hour scenarios. The addition of five vehicle trips during each peak hour under cumulative conditions would not likely reduce the level of service to below the City’s standard of LOS D (Kittelson 2013). TABLE 12 CUMULATIVE INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY Intersection Cumulative Weekday AM Peak Hour Cumulative Weekday PM Peak Hour Delay LOS Delay LOS Signalized Elm Street/Hill Street/Key Boulevard 27.6 C 25.7 C AWSC Elm Street/Richmond Street/Blake Street 13.4 B 14.0 B Signalized Richmond Avenue/Potrero Avenue 14.1 B 13.9 B Source: PMC 2009 TABLE 13 CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY Intersection Cumulative Plus Project Weekday AM Peak Hour Cumulative Plus Project Weekday PM Peak Hour Delay LOS Delay LOS Signalized Elm Street/Hill Street/Key Boulevard 27.6 C 25.7 C AWSC Elm Street/Richmond Street/Blake Street 13.4 B 14.1 B Signalized Richmond Avenue/Potrero Avenue 14.1 B 13.9 B Source: PMC 2009 1 The two projects are forecast to generate approximately 7,607 weekday daily trips, with 302 AM peak-hour trips (180 inbound and 122 outbound) and 795 PM peak-hour trips (402 inbound and 393 outbound). Trip generation estimates for the related projects were developed using trip rates provided in the ITE Trip Generation Rates, 7th Edition. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project City of El Cerrito Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2014 78 DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS a) Less Than Significant Impact. The project would generate 12 weekday AM peak-hour trips and 13 weekday PM peak-hour trips. When compared to existing and cumulative conditions, the project would not substantially increase traffic volumes or congestion in the study area. The close proximity of the project site to the El Cerrito del Norte BART station, several bus lines, and commercial uses will likely result in transit use and pedestrian activity that will reduce the number of automobile trips associated with the project and the related demand for parking on site. The project proposes to provide 15 parking spaces where standard municipal requirements would require 21 spaces. City parking standards do not constitute a measure of parking effectiveness, but attempt to address parking demand throughout the city. Pursuant to the Planned Development Overlay provisions, these standards may be modified to reflect site-specific conditions. The proposed on-site parking, available pedestrian and transit facilities, and on-street parking support project needs for transportation without creating physical conditions that result in potentially significant impacts. The City will consider these factors when considering the merit of granting a parking reduction for the project. As reflected in Table 11 and Table 13, the project would not create any project-related significant impacts by degrading LOS at study intersections to unacceptable levels during the existing plus project condition or the cumulative plus project condition. The project would not alter the existing travel flow of vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians and as previously noted, the project would add approximately 35 residents, so it would not negatively affect the performance of the circulation system, including mass transit and non-motorized travel. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The project would generate 12 weekday AM peak-hour trips and 13 weekday PM peak-hour trips (Kittelson 2013). According to Contra Costa Transportation Authority (2006) guidelines for traffic studies, projects generating less than 100 peak-hour trips are considered to have a less than significant impact on the Congestion Management Program roadway network. c) No Impact. The project is a residential development and is not located in the vicinity of any public or private airports. d) Less Than Significant Impact. The project would not modify existing intersections or roadways, including Elm Street. The project would improve the sidewalk fronting the project along Elm Street, but would not alter the existing travel flow of vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians. The project driveway would be consistent with City code requirements at 18 feet in width. Because the project is a residential project in a residential neighborhood, the project would not introduce any incompatible uses. e) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not alter the existing travel flow of vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians or substantially increase traffic on local streets. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a negative effect on emergency access. f) Less Than Significant Impact. The project would not conflict with any adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. The project would be required to provide a location for on-site bicycle storage (four long-term and two short-term bicycle parking spaces). The proposed project includes a bicycle storage area on the ground floor that meets code requirements. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project January 2014 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 79 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand, in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING WASTEWATER SERVICE Existing utility infrastructure, including sanitary sewer lines, serves the project site. The Stege Sanitary District provides wastewater collection services in the city; wastewater generated in El Cerrito is treated at the East Bay Municipal Utility District Water Treatment Plant in Oakland. EBMUD’s Main Wastewater Treatment Plant treats domestic, commercial, and industrial wastewater for an 83-square-mile area that includes the Stege Sanitary District. EBMUD provides primary treatment for up to 320 million gallons per day (mgd) and secondary treatment for a maximum flow of 168 mgd. Current average daily flow is 73 mgd. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project City of El Cerrito Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2014 80 WATER SUPPLY Water service to the project site is provided by the East Bay Municipal Utility District. EBMUD is a public agency that provides drinking water to 1.3 million people and wastewater systems for 640,000 people in portions of Contra Costa and Alameda counties. The district boundaries for the EBMUD drinking water system extend from Crockett on the north southward to San Lorenzo and encompass approximately 325 square miles. The Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), adopted on June 28, 2011, by the EBMUD Board of Directors, is a long-range planning document that reports on EBMUD’s current and projected water usage, water supply programs, and conservation and recycling programs. Urban water management plans are required by the California Urban Water Management Planning Act. Section 10610.4 of the act specifies that “urban water suppliers shall be required to develop water management plans to actively pursue efficient use of available supplies.” The UWMP tracks EBMUD’s progress toward implementing conservation and water recycling programs and ensuring that supplemental water supply sources are identified. Additionally, the UWMP identifies the security, shortage, and health problems associated with its water supply. EBMUD indicates that the average household demand in 2009 was approximately 179 gallons per day. Therefore, the proposed project would generate a water demand of approximately 2,685 gallons per day. SOLID WASTE The East Bay Sanitary Company provides garbage collection services in El Cerrito. The West Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Authority (WCCIWMA), a joint powers agency created by the Cities of El Cerrito, Hercules, Pinole, Richmond, and San Pablo, serves El Cerrito. The WCCIWMA provides waste processing services (landfilling, recyclables processing, composting, etc.) of the franchised waste stream in western Contra Costa County. The WCCIWMA uses a number of landfills in the Bay Area, including, but not limited to, Pacheco Pass Landfill and Hays Road Landfill. The Hays Road Landfill is not expected to reach capacity until 2077, and the Pacheco Pass Landfill is not expected to reach capacity until 2066. These landfills have an estimated remaining capacity of 21,814,578 cubic yards and 40,600,000 cubic yards, respectively (CalRecycle 2012). DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS a) Less Than Significant Impact. As noted above, wastewater generated by the proposed project would be collected by the Stege Sanitary District and treated at EBMUD’s Main Wastewater Treatment Plant. The Stege Sanitary District (2006) assumes the design sanitary flow to be 100 gallons per person per day, so with approximately 35 residents at the project, it would generate approximately 3,500 gallons of wastewater per day. The current average daily flow to the Main Wastewater Treatment Plant is 73 million gallons per day. The proposed project flows represent approximately 0.005 percent of the average daily flows to the treatment plant. Because the proposed project represents such a minor amount of the treatment plant’s capacity, no new infrastructure is needed to service the proposed project, and project flows would not cause an exceedance of wastewater treatment requirements established by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project January 2014 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 81 b) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed under Impact a, the proposed project would not result in the need for expanded wastewater treatment facilities. The project’s water demand would be approximately 2,685 gallons per day. The UWMP projects a water demand of 229 million gallons per day in 2030. The proposed project’s demand would be an insignificant fraction of this estimated demand and would not result in the need for new or expanded water supply facilities. c) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would tie into existing stormwater facilities adjacent to the site. The proposed project would not alter flows such that new or expanded stormwater drainage facilities would be required. See also subsection 9, Hydrology and Water Quality. d) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed above, the proposed project’s water demand would be approximately 2,685 gallons per day, which represents an insignificant portion of EBMUD’s supply. New or expanded water sources or entitlements would not be required to serve the project. e) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed previously, the proposed project would not result in the need for expanded wastewater treatment facilities. f) Less Than Significant Impact. Assuming approximately 10 pounds of solid waste generated per residential unit per day, the project would generate 150 pounds per day or approximately 27.4 tons per year, which represents a small fraction of any landfill used by the WCCIWMA. While solid waste generated by the proposed project could shorten the life span of the landfill by up to one year, it would not itself require any landfill expansion. Existing landfills in the area have sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste generation. g) Less Than Significant Impact. The City must divert at least 50 percent of its solid waste through reduction, recycling, composting, and other activities. In order to achieve this aim, the City offers recycling services and requires new development projects to comply with Zoning Ordinance provisions regarding recycling. The project would comply with all statutes and regulations related to solid waste. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project City of El Cerrito Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2014 82 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? “Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS a) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. See subsection 4, Biological Resources, and subsection 5, Cultural Resources. Implementation of the proposed project, as mitigated, would have a less than significant impact on the quality of the environment, habitat of a fish or wildlife species, fish or wildlife populations, plant or animal communities, rare or endangered plants or animals, or examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The impacts of the proposed project are individually limited and not considered “cumulatively considerable.” Although incremental changes in certain issue areas can be expected as a result of the proposed project, all environmental impacts that could occur as a result of the proposed project would be reduced to a less than significant level through compliance with existing regulations discussed in this Initial Study and/or implementation of the mitigation measures recommended in this Initial Study for the following resource areas: air quality (AQ-1), biological resources (BIO-1 through BIO-5), cultural resources (CULT-1 through CULT-4), and greenhouse gas emissions (GHG-1). c) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Implementation of the proposed project would result in no environmental effects that would cause substantial ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project January 2014 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 83 direct or indirect adverse effects on human beings with incorporation of the mitigation measures recommended in this Initial Study. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project City of El Cerrito Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2014 84 REFERENCES ABAG (Association of Bay Area Governments). 1995. Hazard Map, Dam Failure Inundation Areas. Accessed October 17, 2012. http://www.abag.ca.gov/bayarea/eqmaps/damfailure /dfpickc.html. BAAQMD (Bay Area Air Quality Management District). 2010. Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan. 2011a. Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Guidelines. 2011b. Stationary Source Screening Analysis Tool. Busby, P. T. C. Wainwright, G. J. Bryant, L. J. Lierheimer, R. S. Waples, F. W. Waknitz, and I. V. Lagomarsino. 1996. Status review of wet coast steelhead from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. Seattle: NOAA Technical Memorandum California Climate Action Registry. 2009. California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol Version 3.1. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology. 1982. Special Studies Zones Map, Richmond Quadrangle. CalRecycle (California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery). 2012. CalRecycle website. Accessed October 17, 2012. http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/. Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2012. California Scenic Highway Mapping System. Accessed October 16, 2012. CARB (California Air Resources Board). 2004. Climate Change Emissions Control Regulations. 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. Accessed September 23, 2009. http://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/landuse.htm. 2010. Staff Report: Proposed Amendments to the Regulation for In-Use Off Road Diesel- Fueled Fleets and the OFFROAD Large Spark-Ignition Fleet Requirements. CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game). 2012. California Natural Diversity Database – Rarefind 3. Sacramento: CDFG Biogeographic Data Branch. Accessed October 17, 2012. City of El Cerrito. 1999. City of El Cerrito 1999 General Plan. 2010. El Cerrito Safeway Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration. 2013. El Cerrito Climate Action Plan. CNPS (California Native Plant Society). 2012. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v8-01a). Sacramento: CNPS. Accessed October 22, 2012. Contra Costa County. 2007. Mapping Information Center. Accessed October 2012. http://www.ccmap.us/. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project January 2014 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 85 Contra Costa Transportation Authority. 2006. Technical Procedures Update. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 2012. All About Birds – Bird Guide (online edition). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University. Accessed October 22, 2012. DTSC (California Department of Toxic Substances Control). 2012. EnviroStor Database: Hazardous Waste and Substances Site (Cortese) List. Accessed October 17, 2012. http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Cortese_List.cfm. EBMUD (East Bay Municipal Utility District). 2010. Urban Water Management Plan. EFCTC (European Fluorocarbons Technical Committee). 2003. Fluorocarbons and Sulphur Hexafluoride: Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) Fact Sheet EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). 2010a. “Nitrous Oxide.” http://www.epa.gov/nitrousoxide/scientific.html. 2010b. “High Global Warming Potential Gases.” 2011a. “Climate Change – Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Carbon Dioxide.” http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/co2.html. 2011b. “Methane.” http://www.epa.gov/methane/scientific.html. Essig Museum of Entomology. 2012. California’s Endangered Insects (online edition). Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley. Accessed October 22, 2012. FTA (Federal Transit Administration). 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers). 2003. Trip Generation Rates, 7th ed. 2008. Trip Generation Rates, 8th ed. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 2013. Letter to Patrick Hindmarsh, PMC. “El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street TIA Review.” Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC 2012. Bay Area Census – City of El Cerrito. Accessed October 18, 2012. http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/cities/ElCerrito.htm. Myers, J. M, R. G. Kope, G. J. Bryant, D. Teel, L. J. Lierheimer, T. C Wainwright, W. S. Grant, F. W. Waknitz, K. Neely, S. T. Lindley, and R. S. Waples. 1998. Status review of Chinook salmon from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS- Nafis, Gary. 2012. California Herps: A Guide to Amphibians and Reptiles of California (online edition). Accessed October 22, 2012. NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2005. Green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris) status review update. Santa Cruz, CA: NMFS Southwest Fish Science Center. PMC. 2009. City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Traffic Impact Analysis. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project City of El Cerrito Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2014 86 SSD (Stege Sanitary District). 2006. Stege Sanitary District Standard Specifications and Details. Accessed October 18, 2012. http://www.stegesan.org/Documents/SSD.pdf. USFWS (US Fish and Wildlife Service). 1984. Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse and California Clapper Rail Recovery Plan. Portland, OR: USFWS, Pacific Region. 1995. Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Native Fishes Recovery Plan. Portland, OR: USFWS. 2005. Recovery Plan for the Tidewater Goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi). Portland, OR: USFWS. 2012. Sacramento Fish & Wildlife Office Species List (online edition). Sacramento: USFWS. Accessed October 17, 2012. USGS (US Geological Survey). 2008. Accessed February 6, 2013. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/nca/ucerf/. VerPlanck Historic Preservation Consulting. 2013. Historic Resource Evaluation for 1715 Elm Street, El Cerrito, California. WCCUSD (West Contra Costa Unified School District). 2012. “School Boundary Maps.” Accessed October 18, 2012. http://www.wccusd.net/page/665. Weitkamp, L. T. C. Wainwright, G. J. Bryant, G. B. Milner, D. J. Teel, R. G. Kope, and R. S. Waples. 1995. Status review of coho salmon from Washington, Oregon, and California. Seattle: NOAA Technical Memorandum ---PAGE BREAK--- BIGGS PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT 1715 ELM STREET CONDOMINIUMS BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT Prepared by: 2729 PROSPECT PARK DRIVE, SUITE 220 RANCHO CORDOVA, CA 95670 Prepared for: BIGGS PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT 820 KAINS AVENUE, #108 ALBANY, CA 94706 OCTOBER 2012 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- BIGGS PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT 1715 ELM STREET CONDOMINIUMS BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT Date report prepared: October 2012 Project site location: 1715 Elm Street, El Cerrito, California, on the west side of Elm Street, between Blake and Hill streets, approximately 1,000 feet east of San Pablo Avenue. APN: 502-112-038 USGS Quad: Richmond, CA Prepared for: Edward Biggs Biggs Property Development 820 Kains Avenue, #108 Albany, CA 94706 (510) 215-4330 Principal investigators: Summer Pardo, PWS - Associate Biologist PMC 2729 Prospect Park Drive, Suite 220 Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 (916) 517-4496 [EMAIL REDACTED] Prepared by: Summer Pardo, PWS - Associate Biologist ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLE OF CONTENTS 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Biological Resources Assessment i CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Location 1 1.2 Project Description 1 1.3 Project Setting 1 CHAPTER 2 REGULATORY SETTING 2.1 Federal 9 2.1.1 Endangered Species Act 9 2.1.2 Clean Water Act 9 2.1.2.1 Section 404 9 2.1.2.2 Section 401 10 2.1.3 Migratory Bird Treaty Act 11 2.1.3.1 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act 11 2.2 State 11 2.2.1 California Endangered Species Act 11 2.2.2 California Fish and Game Code 11 2.2.2.1 Streambed Alteration Agreement 11 2.2.2.2 Native Plant Protection 12 2.2.2.3 Birds of Prey 12 2.2.2.4 Fully Protected Species 12 2.2.3 . California Wetlands and Other Water Policies 13 2.2.3.1 Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act 13 2.2.3.2 Clean Water Act, Section 401 Water Quality Certificaton 13 2.2.3.3 Delegated Permit Authority 14 2.2.3.4 State Definition of Covered Waters 14 2.3 Nongovernmental Agency 14 2.3.1California Native Plant Society 14 2.4 15 2.4.1El Cerrito Municipal Code 15 2.4.1.1 Chapter 19.12 – Creek Protection Overlay District 15 CHAPTER 3 STUDY METHODS 3.1 Studies Required 16 3.1.1 Literature 16 3.1.2 Habitat Assessment 16 3.1.3 Impact Assessment 17 CHAPTER 4 BIOLOGICAL SETTING 4.1 Existing Land Uses 18 4.2 Regional Species and Habitats of Concern 18 4.2.1 Wetlands and Other Waters of the US 18 4.2.2 Special-Status Species 21 ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLE OF CONTENTS Biological Resources Assessment 1715 Elm Street Condominiums ii CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION 5.1 Standards of Significance 31 5.2 Methodology 32 5.3 Impacts to Candidate, Sensitive, or Special-Status Species (Standard of Significance 1) 32 5.3.1 Avoidance and Minimization Measures 33 5.4 Impacts to Riparian Habitat or Sensitive Natural Communities (Standard of Significance 2) 34 5.5 Impacts to Federally Protected Wetlands (Standard of Significance 3) 37 5.5.1 Avoidance and Minimization Measures 37 5.6 Impacts to the Movement of Native Resident or Migratory Fish or Wildlife Species or Within Established Migratory Corridors (Standard of Significance 4) 37 5.7 Conflict with Local Policies and Ordinances (Standard of Significance 5) 38 5.8 Conflict with Conservation Plans (Standard of Significance 38 5.9 Special-Status Species Population Impacts (Standard of Significance 7) 38 CHAPTER 6 REFERENCES APPENDIX A – DATABASE RESULTS LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Existing Land Use Classifications 18 Table 2: Special-Status Species in the Project Vicinity 23 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Regional Vicinity Map 3 Figure 2: Project Location Map 5 Figure 3: Site Plan 7 Figure 4: Existing Land Uses 19 Figure 5: Creek Map 35 ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Biological Resources Assessment 1 The purpose of this Biological Resources Assessment (BRA) is to describe the existing biological environment and to review the proposed 1715 Elm Street Condominiums development project in sufficient detail to determine to what extent the proposed action may affect threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species and/or their habitats. This BRA summarizes the effects on biological resources within the project study area (PSA) for use in the environmental document, and presents technical information upon which later decisions regarding project design may be developed. 1.1 PROJECT LOCATION El Cerrito is located in Contra Costa County, in the northern San Francisco Bay Area, approximately 13.5 miles north of Oakland (Figures 1 and Contra Costa County is bordered by the counties of Alameda to the south, Solano to the north, and San Joaquin to the east. El Cerrito is bordered by Richmond to the north and west, Albany to the south, and Wildcat Canyon Regional Park and Kensington to the east. El Cerrito is approximately 5 miles from the campus of the University of California, Berkeley, and is located approximately one-half mile east of San Francisco Bay. 1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Elm Street condominium project proposes 13 new condominiums and the rehabilitation and relocation of the existing single-family detached house on the site (Figure The existing 1,116-square-foot house contains two bedrooms. The proposed condominium units will contain a combination of one- and three-bedroom units totaling 14,147 square feet, with 3 one- bedroom units (approximately 869 square feet per unit) and 10 three-bedroom units (approximately 1,154 square feet per unit). The project proposes a residential density of 33 units per acre. Parking will be provided in a gated parking garage located below the units and includes one parking space designed to comply with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The project proposes 14 new parking spaces and is requesting an exception to the City parking requirements, which requires 19 spaces. The proposed parking exception is based on the proximity of the project site to the El Cerrito del Norte BART station, several bus lines, and nearby commercial uses. 1.3 PROJECT SETTING The project site is a fairly level, rectangular 0.42-acre lot located at 1715 Elm Street. There is currently a fence running across the front of the property to restrict access to the site. The site slopes from a high point along the Elm Street frontage to the western boundary, representing a 3 percent slope across the property. It currently includes a vacant two-story house built in 1897, a detached garage, a well house, and a shed. There are several persimmon trees and one miniature lemon tree on-site. The site has fallen into disrepair and is now overgrown with weeds and unkempt landscaping. An open, rock-lined drainage ditch runs east–west across the site along the southern edge of the property approximately 20 feet from the house. The ditch is approximately 4 feet deep and continues westerly onto the adjacent property in an open box culvert. The ditch conveys stormwater runoff from upstream properties to the east. The project site is primarily surrounded by residential neighborhoods. Elm Street and residential properties are to the east, residential properties and Hill Street to the north, residential ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Biological Resources Assessment 1715 Elm Street Condominiums 2 properties and Liberty Street to the west, and a day care and Blake Street are located to the south (Figure Windrush School, a private K–8 school, is approximately 700 feet to the northeast, while San Pablo Avenue, which is a major commercial corridor, and a Safeway store are a few blocks to the west. The El Cerrito del Norte BART station is approximately one- quarter mile to the northwest. ---PAGE BREAK--- S a n S a n F r a n c i s c o F r a n c i s c o C o u n t y C o u n t y S o l a n o S o l a n o C o u n t y C o u n t y A l a m e d a A l a m e d a C o u n t y C o u n t y M a r i n M a r i n C o u n t y C o u n t y C o n t r a C o s t a C o n t r a C o s t a C o u n t y C o u n t y S o n o m a S o n o m a C o u n t y C o u n t y N a p a N a p a C o u n t y C o u n t y S a n M a t e o S a n M a t e o C o u n t y C o u n t y S a n t a C l a r a S a n t a C l a r a C o u n t y C o u n t y Oakland San Jose Concord Antioch San Rafael--Novato Santa Rosa Vallejo Fairfield Napa Livermore Petaluma Sonoma Sonoma Half Moon Bay Half Moon Bay Dixon Dixon Fairfield Southwest Fairfield Southwest Yountville Yountville Sacramento River T:\_GIS\CONTRA_COSTA_COUNTY\MXDS\EL_CERRITTO\ELM_STREET\FIG 1 REGIONAL LOCATION.MXD - 11/12/2009 @ 11:01:54 AM 3.5 0 3.5 MILES Project Location Figure 1 Project Regional Location Source: ESRI Streetmap USA P a c i f i c O c e a n San Pablo Bay San Francisco Bay ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Biological Resources Assessment 1715 Elm Street Condominiums 4 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- Source: Microsoft Bing Maps, 2013 T:\_GIS\CONTRA_COSTA_COUNTY\MXDS\EL_CERRITTO\ELM_STREET\FIG 2 PROJECT LOCATION.MXD - 2/7/2013 @ 5:09:36 PM 500 0 500 FEET Project Location Figure 2 Project Location ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Biological Resources Assessment 1715 Elm Street Condominiums 6 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- Sources: City of El Cerrito, LCA Architects FEET 0 10 20 Figure 3 Site Plan with Conceptual Streetscape and Buffer Yard Planting T:\_CS\Work\El Cerrito, City of\1715 Elm Street 29-0152\figures EXISTING HOUSE PROPOSED CONDOMINIUMS ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Biological Resources Assessment 1715 Elm Street Condominiums 8 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 2 REGULATORY SETTING 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Biological Resources Assessment 9 This section identifies the environmental review and consultation requirements as well as permits and approvals that must be obtained from local, state, and federal agencies before implementation of the proposed project. 2.1 FEDERAL 2.1.1 ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended, provides protective measures for federally listed threatened and endangered species, including their habitats, from unlawful take (16 United States Code (USC) Sections 1531–1544). The ESA defines “take” to mean “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” Title 50, Part 222, of the Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR Section 222) further defines “harm” to include “an act which actually kills or injures fish or wildlife. Such an act may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures fish or wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns including feeding, spawning, rearing, migrating, feeding, or sheltering.” ESA Section 7(a)(1) requires federal agencies to utilize their authority to further the conservation of listed species. ESA Section 7(a)(2) requires consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) if a federal agency undertakes, funds, permits, or authorizes (termed the federal nexus) any action that may affect endangered or threatened species, or designated critical habitat. For projects that may result in the incidental “take” of threatened or endangered species, or critical habitat, and that lack a federal nexus, a Section 10(a)(1)(b) incidental take permit can be obtained from the USFWS and/or the NMFS. 2.1.2 CLEAN WATER ACT The basis of the Clean Water Act (CWA) was established in 1948; however, it was referred to as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. The act was reorganized and expanded in 1972 (33 USC Section 1251), and at this time the Clean Water Act became the act’s commonly used name. The basis of the CWA is the regulation of pollutant discharges into waters of the United States (WoUS), as well as the establishment of surface water quality standards. 2.1.2.1 Section 404 CWA Section 404 (33 USC Section 1344) established the program to regulate the discharge of dredged or fill material into WoUS, including wetlands. Under this regulation, certain activities proposed within WoUS require the obtainment of a permit prior to initiation. These activities include, but are not limited to, placement of fill for the purposes of development, water resource projects dams and levees), infrastructure development highways and bridges), and mining operations. The primary objective of this program is to ensure that the discharge of dredge or fill material is not permitted if a practicable alternative to the proposed activities exists that results in less impact to WoUS, or the proposed activity would result in significant adverse impacts to WoUS. To comply with these objectives, a permittee must document the measures taken to avoid and minimize impacts to WoUS, and provide compensatory mitigation for any unavoidable impacts. ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 2 REGULATORY SETTING 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Biological Resources Assessment 10 The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the USFWS are assigned roles and responsibilities in the administration of this program; however, the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is the lead agency in the administration of day-to-day activities, including issuance of permits. The agencies will typically assert jurisdiction over the following waters: traditional navigable waters (TNW); wetlands adjacent to TNWs; relatively permanent waters (RPW) that are non-navigable tributaries to TNWs, and have relatively permanent flow or seasonally continuous flow (typically three months); and wetlands that directly abut RPWs. Case-by- case investigations are usually conducted by the agencies to ascertain their jurisdiction over waters that are non-navigable tributaries and do not contain relatively permanent or seasonal flow, wetlands adjacent to the aforementioned features, and wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs (USACE 2007). Jurisdiction is not generally asserted over swales or erosional features gullies or small washes characterized by low volume/short duration flow events), or ditches constructed wholly within and draining only uplands that do not have relatively permanent flows. The extent of jurisdiction within WoUS, which lack adjacent wetlands, is determined by the ordinary high water mark (OHWM). The OHWM is defined in 33 CFR Section 328.3(e) as the “line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas.” Wetlands are further defined under 33 CFR Section 328.3 and 40 CFR Section 230.3 as “those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions” and typically include “swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas.” The USACE (1987) Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (1987 Manual) sets forth a standardized methodology for delineating the extent of wetlands under federal jurisdiction. The 1987 Manual outlines three parameters that all wetlands, under normal circumstances, must contain positive indicators for to be considered jurisdictional. These parameters include wetland hydrology, hydrophytic vegetation, and hydric soils (USACE 1987). In 2006, the USACE issued a series of Regional Supplements to address regional differences that are important to the functioning and identification of wetlands. The supplements present “wetland indicators, delineation guidance, and other information” that is specific to the region. The USACE requires that wetland delineations submitted after June 5, 2007, be conducted in accordance with both the 1987 Manual and the applicable supplement. 2.1.2.2 Section 401 Under CWA Section 401 (33 USC Section 1341), federal agencies are not authorized to issue a permit and/or license for any activity that may result in discharges to WoUS, unless a state or tribe where the discharge originates either grants or waives CWA Section 401 certification. CWA Section 401 provides states or tribes with the ability to grant, grant with conditions, deny, or waive certification. Granting certification, with or without conditions, allows the federal permit/license to be issued and remain consistent with any conditions set forth in the CWA Section 401 certification. Denial of the certification prohibits the issuance of the federal license or permit, and waiver allows the permit/license to be issued without state or tribal comment. Decisions made by states or tribes are based on the proposed project’s compliance with EPA water quality standards as well as applicable effluent limitation guidelines, new source performance standards, toxic pollutant restrictions, and any other appropriate requirements of ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 2 REGULATORY SETTING 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Biological Resources Assessment 11 state or tribal law. In California, the State Water Resources Control Board is the primary regulatory authority for CWA Section 401 requirements (additional details below). 2.1.3 MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT Migratory birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (16 USC Sections 703–711). The Migratory Bird Treaty Act makes it unlawful to take, possess, buy, sell, purchase, or barter any migratory bird listed in 50 CFR Section 10, including feathers or other parts, nests, eggs, or products, except as allowed by implementing regulations (50 CFR Section 21). The majority of birds found in the project vicinity would be protected under the act. 2.1.3.1 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and golden eagle (Aquila are federally protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 USC Sections 668– 668c). Under the act, it is illegal to take, possess, sell, purchase, barter, offer to sell or purchase or barter, transport, export, or import at any time or in any manner a bald or golden eagle, alive or dead; or any part, nest, or egg of these eagles unless authorized by the Secretary of the Interior. Violations are subject to fines and/or imprisonment for up to one year. Active nest sites are also protected from disturbance during the breeding season. 2.2 STATE 2.2.1 CALIFORNIA ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT Under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) has the responsibility for maintaining a list of endangered and threatened species (California Fish and Game Code [FGC] Section 2070). The CDFW also maintains a list of “candidate species,” which are species formally noticed as being under review for potential addition to the list of endangered or threatened species, and a list of “species of special concern,” which serve as a species “watch lists.” Pursuant to the requirements of the CESA, an agency reviewing a proposed project within its jurisdiction must determine whether any state-listed endangered or threatened species may be present, and determine whether the proposed project will have a potentially significant impact on such species. In addition, the CDFW encourages informal consultation on any proposed project that may impact a candidate species. Project-related impacts to species on the CESA endangered or threatened list would be considered significant. State-listed species are fully protected under the mandates of the CESA. “Take” of protected species incidental to otherwise lawful management activities may be authorized under FGC Section 206.591. Authorization from the CDFW would be in the form of an incidental take permit. 2.2.2 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME CODE 2.2.2.1 Streambed Alteration Agreement State and local public agencies are subject to FGC Section 1602, which governs construction activities that will substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially change the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake designated as waters of the state by the CDFW. Under FGC Section 1602, a discretionary Streambed Alteration Agreement must be ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 2 REGULATORY SETTING 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Biological Resources Assessment 12 issued by the CDFW to the project proponent prior to the initiation of construction activities within lands under CDFW jurisdiction. As a general rule, this requirement applies to any work undertaken within the 100-year floodplain of a stream or river containing fish or wildlife resources. 2.2.2.2 Native Plant Protection Act The Native Plant Protection Act (FGC Sections 1900–1913) prohibits the taking, possessing, or sale within the state of any plants with a state designation of rare, threatened, or endangered (as defined by the CDFW). An exception in the act allows landowners, under specified circumstances, to take listed plant species, provided that the owners first notify the CDFW and give that state agency at least 10 days to retrieve the plants before they are plowed under or otherwise destroyed (FGC Section 1913). Project impacts to these species are not considered significant unless the species are known to have a high potential to occur within the area of disturbance associated with construction of the proposed project. 2.2.2.3 Birds of Prey Under FGC Section 3503.5, it is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds of prey), or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto. 2.2.2.4 Fully Protected Species California statutes also afford “fully protected” status to a number of specifically identified birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians. These species cannot be “taken,” even with an incidental take permit. FGC Section 3505 makes it unlawful to “take” “any aigrette or egret, osprey, bird of paradise, goura, numidi, or any part of such a bird.” FGC Section 3511 protects from “take” the following fully protected birds: American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum); brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis); California black rail (Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus); California clapper rail (Rallus longirostris obsoletus); California condor (Gymnogyps californianus); California least tern (Sterna albifrons browni); golden eagle; greater sandhill crane (Grus canadensis tabida); light-footed clapper rail (Rallus longirostris levipes); southern bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus leucocephalus); trumpeter swan (Cygnus buccinator); white- tailed kite (Elanus leucurus); and Yuma clapper rail (Rallus longirostris yumanensis). FGC Section 4700 identifies the following fully protected mammals that cannot be “taken”: Morro Bay kangaroo rat (Dipodomys heermanni morroensis); bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis), except Nelson bighorn sheep (subspecies Ovis canadensis nelsoni); Guadalupe fur seal (Arctocephalus townsendi); ring-tailed cat (genus Bassariscus); Pacific right whale (Eubalaena sieboldi); salt-marsh harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris); southern sea otter lutris nereis); and wolverine (Gulo gulo). FGC Section 5050 protects from “take” the following fully protected reptiles and amphibians: blunt-nosed leopard lizard (Crotaphytus wislizenii silus); San Francisco garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia); Santa Cruz long-toed salamander macrodactylum croceum); limestone salamander (Hydromantes brunus); and black toad (Bufo boreas exsul). ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 2 REGULATORY SETTING 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Biological Resources Assessment 13 FGC Section 5515 also identifies certain fully protected fish that cannot lawfully be “taken” even with an incidental take permit: Colorado River squawfish lucius); thicktail chub (Gila crassicauda); Mohave chub (Gila mohavensis); Lost River sucker (Catostomus luxatus); Modoc sucker (Catostomus microps); shortnose sucker (Chasmistes brevirostris); humpback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus); Owens River pupfish (Cyprinoden radiosus); unarmored threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus williamsoni); and rough sculpin (Cottus asperrimus). 2.2.3 CALIFORNIA WETLANDS AND OTHER WATER POLICIES The State Water Resources Control Board and its various departments do not authorize or approve projects that fill or otherwise harm or destroy coastal, estuarine, or inland wetlands. Exceptions may be granted if all of the following conditions are met:  The project is water-dependent.  No other feasible alternative is available.  The public trust is not adversely affected.  Adequate compensation is proposed as part of the project. 2.2.3.1 Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1966 (California Water Code Section 13000 et seq.; CCR Title 23, Chapter 3, Subchapter 15) is the primary state regulation that addresses water quality. The requirements of the act are implemented by the at the state level and by the Regional Water Quality Control Board at the local level. The carries out planning, permitting, and enforcement activities related to water quality in California. The act provides for waste discharge requirements and a permitting system for discharges to land or water. Certification is required by the for activities that can affect water quality. 2.2.3.2 Clean Water Act, Section 401 Water Quality Certificaton CWA Section 401 (33 USC Section 1341) requires that any applicant for a federal license or permit, which may result in a pollutant discharge to WoUS, obtain a certification that the discharge will comply with EPA water quality standards. The state or tribal agency responsible for issuance of the Section 401 certification may also require compliance with additional effluent limitations and water quality standards set forth in state/tribal laws. In California, the is the primary regulatory authority for CWA Section 401 requirements. The San Francisco Bay is responsible for enforcing water quality criteria and protecting water resources in the project area. In addition, the is responsible for controlling discharges to surface waters of the state by issuing waste discharge requirements (WDR), or commonly by issuing conditional waivers to WDRs. The requires that a project proponent obtain a CWA Section 401 water quality certification for CWA Section 404 permits issued by the USACE. A request for water quality certification (including WDRs) by the and an application for a General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activities are prepared and submitted following completion of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) environmental document and submittal of the wetland delineation to the USACE. ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 2 REGULATORY SETTING 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Biological Resources Assessment 14 2.2.3.3 Delegated Permit Authority California has been delegated permit authority for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit program including stormwater permits for all areas except tribal lands. Issuance of CWA Section 404 dredge and fill permits remains the responsibility of the USACE; however, the state actively uses its CWA Section 401 certification authority to ensure CWA Section 404 permits are in compliance with state water quality standards. 2.2.3.4 State Definition of Covered Waters Under California state law, “waters of the state” means “any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state.” Therefore, water quality laws apply to both surface water and groundwater. After the US Supreme Court decision in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. US Army Corps of Engineers, the Office of Chief Counsel of the released a legal memorandum confirming the state’s jurisdiction over isolated wetlands. The memorandum stated that under the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne), discharges to wetlands and other waters of the state are subject to state regulation, and this includes isolated wetlands. In general, the State Water Resources Control Board regulates discharges to isolated waters in much the same way as it does for WoUS, using Porter-Cologne rather than Clean Water Act authority. 2.3 NONGOVERNMENTAL AGENCY 2.3.1 CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) is a nongovernmental agency that classifies native plant species according to current population distribution and threat level, in regard to extinction. These data are utilized by the CNPS to create and maintain a list of native California plants that have low numbers, limited distribution, or are otherwise threatened with extinction. This information is published in the Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (CNPS 2012). Potential impacts to populations of CNPS-listed plants receive consideration under CEQA review. The following identifies the definitions of the CNPS listings: List 1A: Plants believed to be extinct List 1B: Plants that are rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere List 2: Plants that are rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but are more numerous elsewhere All of the plant species on Lists 1 and 2 meet the requirements of the Native Plant Protection Act Section 1901, Chapter 10, or FGC Section 2062 and Section 2067 and are eligible for state listing. Plants appearing on List 1 or 2 are considered to meet the criteria of CEQA Section 15380, and effects on these species are considered “significant.” Plants on List 3 (plants about which we need more information) and/or List 4 (plants of limited distribution), as defined by the CNPS, are not currently protected under state or federal law. Therefore, no detailed descriptions or impact analysis was performed on species with these classifications. ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 2 REGULATORY SETTING 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Biological Resources Assessment 15 2.4 LOCAL 2.4.1 EL CERRITO MUNICIPAL CODE 2.4.1.1 Chapter 19.12 – Creek Protection Overlay District Chapter 19.12 of the El Cerrito Municipal Code affords protective measures to natural watercourses identified in the –CP Creek Protection (CP) overlay district. The purpose of the CP overlay district is to delineate creeks and major drainages and ensure that development or other activities in these sensitive areas achieves the following goals:  Preserves, enhances, and restores natural drainage ways as parts of the storm drainage system, minimizing any alterations or structures within the natural stream channel and streambed.  Preserves riparian vegetation and protects wildlife habitat and wildlife corridors along natural drainage ways.  Protect lands adjacent to riparian areas as public or private permanent open space through dedication or easements.  Protects property owners and the public from erosion and flooding.  Increases access to creeks for maintenance purposes and for potential public access to creek-side amenities.  Ensures that projects are consistent with City Council adopted guidelines and resolutions for creek restoration and improvement, including designated creeks as natural corridors with habitat enhancement.  Furthers the Joint Watershed Goals Statement of restoring creeks by removing culverts, underground pipes, and obstructions to fish and animal migration, and daylighting creeks where they can be enjoyed by people and wildlife. ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 3 STUDY METHODS 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Biological Resources Assessment 16 This section describes the survey methods used to collect data on biological resources on and in the vicinity of the project site. 3.1 STUDIES REQUIRED Pedestrian surveys were conducted within the PSA to assess the biological resources that may be impacted as part of the proposed project. A habitat assessment was performed to identify the habitat present within the PSA and in the vicinity, along with an informal evaluation of potentially jurisdictional waters. A biologist reviewed the proposed project description, performed literature reviews and database searches, and conducted biological surveys to obtain information regarding habitat quality and the presence of sensitive plant and wildlife species within the PSA. 3.1.1 LITERATURE REVIEW A list of special-status species and habitats that have the potential to occur within the PSA or in the vicinity was prepared using information provided by the USFWS Sacramento office’s Species Lists (2012a), the USFWS Critical Habitat Portal (2012b), the CDFW’s California Natural Diversity Database 2012a), and the CNPS’s Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (2012). A search of the USFWS Sacramento office Species List database was performed for the Richmond, California, USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle to identify special-status species under their jurisdiction that may be affected by the proposed project. In addition, a query of the USFWS Critical Habitat Portal was conducted to identify any designated critical habitat on or in the vicinity of the PSA. No critical habitat was identified. The provided a list of known occurrences for special-status species within a 1-mile and 5-mile radius of the PSA. Lastly, the CNPS database was queried to identify special-status plant species with the potential to occur within the Richmond, California, USGS quadrangle. Please see Appendix A for the raw data returned from the database queries. 3.1.2 HABITAT ASSESSMENT A reconnaissance-level survey was conducted by PMC biologists Summer Pardo on September 21, 2012. The purpose of this survey was to identify habitat types within the PSA, including potentially jurisdictional waters and sensitive natural communities. The field investigation included a general inspection of the PSA. Data collected during the survey was used to generate a habitat layer for the PSA using ESRI’s ArcGIS mapping program. Habitat classifications were assigned using the CDFW’s California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System (2012b). ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 2 REGULATORY SETTING 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Biological Resources Assessment 17 3.1.3 IMPACT ASSESSMENT The impact assessment is based on information provided in the project description; the biological and regional setting; and on federal, state, and local regulatory requirements regarding impacts to biological resources. In addition, the impact analysis utilized data collected from the literature review, reconnaissance-level survey, and habitat mapping. Impacts to specific biological resources are identified, and appropriate avoidance, minimization, compensation, and/or mitigation measures are discussed further in Chapter 5. ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 4 BIOLOGICAL SETTING 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Biological Resources Assessment 18 This chapter describes the region in which the project will occur, including a description of the existing biological conditions. 4.1 EXISTING LAND USES The site survey on September 21, 2012, revealed that urban residential land uses dominate the proposed project site and adjacent lands. The site is dominated by residential uses, with one surface water feature on the southern portion of the parcel (Table 1, Figure The site contains one residential structure, along with a storage shed, carport, and pump house. The vegetation on-site is characterized by ruderal herbaceous species, with scattered orchard trees. In addition, one U-shaped surface water feature traverses the property from east to west. This feature is characterized by cobble reinforced sidewalls and bed, and is dominated by watercress (Nasturtium officinale). TABLE 1: EXISTING LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS Land Use Acreage Urban 0.41 Surface Water 0.01 Total 0.42 4.2 REGIONAL SPECIES AND HABITATS OF CONCERN 4.2.1 WETLANDS AND OTHER WATERS OF THE US Jurisdictional WoUS and isolated wetlands provide a variety of functions for plants and wildlife. Wetlands and other water features provide habitat, foraging, cover, migration, and movement corridors for both special-status and common species. In addition to habitat functions, these features provide physical conveyance of surface water flows capable of handling large stormwater events. Large storms can produce extreme flows that cause bank cutting and sedimentation of open waters and streams. Jurisdictional waters can slow these flows and lessen the effects of these large storm events, protecting habitat and other resources. The informal evaluation of potentially jurisdictional waters identified one surface water feature within the PSA, which is a daylighted portion of Baxter Creek. A formal delineation has not been conducted or verified to date. ---PAGE BREAK--- Elm Street Blake Street Liberty Street Source: Bing Maps, 2012; PMC, 2012 T:\_GIS\CONTRA_COSTA_COUNTY\MXDS\EL_CERRITTO\ELM_STREET\FIG HABITAT.MXD - 10/26/2012 @ 1:12:37 PM 25 0 25 FEET Figure 4 Existing Land Use Map Legend Project Site Habitat Surface Water Urban ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 4 BIOLOGICAL SETTING 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Biological Resources Assessment 20 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 4 BIOLOGICAL SETTING 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Biological Resources Assessment 21 4.2.2 SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES Candidate, sensitive, or special-status species are commonly characterized as species that are at potential risk or actual risk to their persistence in a given area or across their native habitat. These species have been identified and assigned a status ranking by governmental agencies such as the CDFW, the USFWS, and private organizations such as the CNPS. The degree to which a species is at risk of extinction is the determining factor in the assignment of a status ranking. Some common threats to a species’ or a population’s persistence include habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation, as well as human conflict and intrusion. For the purposes of this BRA, special-status species are defined by the following codes:  Listed, proposed, or candidates for listing under the ESA (50 CFR Section 17.11 – listed; 61 Federal Register Section 7591, February 28, 1996, candidates)  Listed or proposed for listing under the CESA (FGC 1992 Section 2050 et seq.; 14 California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 670.1 et seq.)  Designated as Species of Special Concern by the CDFW  Designated as Fully Protected by the CDFW (FGC Sections 3511, 4700, 5050, 5515)  Species that meet the definition of rare or endangered under CEQA (14 CCR Section 15380), including CNPS List 1 and 2 Several special-status species were identified by the database queries (Table however, the urban land uses on and adjacent to the proposed project site do not provide suitable habitat for any of the special-status plant species listed as occurring in the area. In addition, several wildlife species were identified. The majority of the species with the potential to occur in the project vicinity are associated with coastal habitats salt marshes, mangroves, brackish/estuarine waters). These habitats do not occur on-site; therefore, no impacts to special-status species associated with coastal habitats will occur. Further discussions regarding potential impacts to special-status species are provided in Subsection 5.2. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 4 BIOLOGICAL SETTING 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Biological Resources Assessment 23 TABLE 2: SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES IN THE PROJECT VICINITY Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status State Status CNPS Rare Plant Rank General Habitat Characteristics Potential to Be Affected by the Project Plants Pallid manzanita Arctostaphylos pallida T E 1B.1 Siliceous shale, sandy or gravelly soil. Broadleafed upland forest, closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub (CNPS 2012). None. No habitat on site. Santa Cruz tarplant Holocarpha macradenia T E 1B.1 Clay, sandy soil. Coastal prairie, coastal scrub, valley & foothill grassland (CNPS 2012). None. No habitat on site. Critical habitat, Santa Cruz tarplant X – – – No critical habitat on or near the project site. California aeablite Suaeda californica E – 1B.1 Marshes & swamps (coastal salt) (CNPS 2012). None. No habitat on site. Alkali milk-vetch Astragalus tener var. tener – – 1B.2 Alkaline soils. Playas, valley and foothill grassland (adobe clay), vernal pools (CNPS 2012). None. No habitat on site. Bent-flowered fiddleneck Amsinckia lunaris – – 1B.2 Coastal bluff scrub, cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland (CNPS 2012). None. No habitat on site. Coastal bluff morning- glory Calystegia purpurata ssp. saxicola – – 1B.2 Coastal dunes, coastal scrub, north coast coniferous forest (CNPS 2012). None. No habitat on site. Diablo helianthella Helianthella castanea – – 1B.2 Broadleaf upland forest, chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, riparian woodland, valley and foothill grassland (CNPS 2012). None. No habitat on site. ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 4 BIOLOGICAL SETTING Biological Resources Assessment 1715 Elm Street Condominiums 24 Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status State Status CNPS Rare Plant Rank General Habitat Characteristics Potential to Be Affected by the Project Fragrant fritillary Fritillaria liliacea – – 1B.2 Serpentinite soils. Cismontane woodland, coastal prairie, coastal scrub, valley & foothill grassland (CNPS 2012). None. No habitat on site. Franciscan thistle Cirsium andrewsii – – 1B.2 Mesic, sometimes serpentinite soils. Broadleafed upland forest, coastal bluff scrub, coastal prairie, coastal scrub (CNPS 2012). None. No habitat on site. Loma Prieta hoita Hoita strobilina – – 1B.2 Usually serpentinite, mesic soils. Chaparral, cismontane woodland, riparian woodland (CNPS 2012). None. No habitat on site. Oregon meconella Meconella oregana – – 1B.1 Coastal prairie, coastal scrub (CNPS 2012). None. No habitat on site. Point Reyes bird's- beak Chloropyron maritimum ssp. palustre – – 1B.2 Marshes & swamps (coastal salt) (CNPS 2012). None. No habitat on site. Round-leaved filaree California – – 1B.1 Clay soils. Cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland (CNPS 2012). None. No habitat on site. Saline clover Trifolium hydrophilum – – 1B.2 Marshes & swamps, valley and foothill grassland (mesic, alkaline), vernal pools (CNPS 2012). None. No habitat on site. Western leatherwood Dirca occidentalis – – 1B.2 Mesic soils. Broadleafed upland forest, closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral, cismontane woodland, north coast coniferous forest, riparian forest, riparian woodland (CNPS 2012). None. No habitat on site. Invertebrates Callippe silverspot butterfly Speyeria callippe callippe E Host plant: violet (Viola pedunculata) (Essig Museum of Entomology 2012). None. Host plant does not occur on the site. ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 4 BIOLOGICAL SETTING 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Biological Resources Assessment 25 Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status State Status CNPS Rare Plant Rank General Habitat Characteristics Potential to Be Affected by the Project Fish Green sturgeon Acipenser medirostris T (NMFS) T Oceanic waters, bays, and estuaries during non-spawning season. Spawning habitat = deep pools in large, turbulent, freshwater mainstems (NMFS 2005). None. No habitat on site. Tidewater goby Eucyclogobius newberryi E E Brackish water, shallow lagoons & lower stream reaches, still water (USFWS 2005). None. No habitat on site. Delta smelt Hypomesus transpacificus T E Brackish water below 25°C non- spawning season. Spawning habitat = shallow, fresh or brackish backwater sloughs with good water quality and substrate (USFWS 1995). None. No habitat on site. Coho salmon – central CA coast kisutch T T Spawning habitat = small streams, stable gravel substrates. Non- spawning = estuarine, marine waters (Weitkamp et al. 1995). None. No habitat on site. Central California coastal steelhead mykiss T (NMFS) T Spawning habitat = gravel- bottomed, fast-flowing, well- oxygenated rivers and streams. Non-spawning = estuarine, marine waters (Busby et al. 1996). None. No habitat on site. Central Valley steelhead T (NMFS) T None. No habitat on site. Central Valley spring- run Chinook Salmon T (NMFS) E Spawning habitat = fast moving, freshwater streams and rivers. Juvenile habitat = brackish estuaries. Non-spawning = marine waters (Myers et al. 1998). None. No habitat on site. Critical habitat, winter- run Chinook salmon X – No critical habitat on or near the project site. ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 4 BIOLOGICAL SETTING Biological Resources Assessment 1715 Elm Street Condominiums 26 Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status State Status CNPS Rare Plant Rank General Habitat Characteristics Potential to Be Affected by the Project Winter-run Chinook salmon, Sacramento River E (NMFS) SSC None. No habitat on site. Amphibians California red-legged frog Rana draytonii T – Ponds/streams in humid forests, woodlands, grasslands, coastal scrub, and streamsides with plant cover in lowlands or foothills. Breeding habitat = permanent or ephemeral water sources; lakes, ponds, reservoirs, slow streams, marshes, bogs, and swamps. Ephemeral wetland habitats require animal burrows or other moist refuges for estivation when the wetlands are dry. From sea level to 5,000 feet. (1,525 meters) (Nafis 2012). None. No habitat on site. Critical habitat, California red-legged frog X – No critical habitat on or near the project site. Reptiles Alameda whipsnake [=striped racer] Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus T T Canyons, rocky hillsides, chaparral scrublands, open woodlands, pond edges andtream courses (Nafis 2012). None. No habitat on site. Critical habitat, Alameda whipsnake X No critical habitat on or near the project site. Birds Western snowy plover Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus T Barren to sparsely vegetated sand beaches, dry salt flats in lagoons, dredge spoils deposited on beach or dune habitat, levees and flats at salt-evaporation ponds, river bars, along alkaline or saline lakes, reservoirs, and ponds (Cornell Lab of Ornithology 2012). None. No habitat on site. ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 4 BIOLOGICAL SETTING 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Biological Resources Assessment 27 Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status State Status CNPS Rare Plant Rank General Habitat Characteristics Potential to Be Affected by the Project California brown pelican Pelecanus occidentalis californicus E Warm coastal marine and estuarine environments. Rare inland. Breeds primarily on islands (Cornell Lab of Ornithology 2012). None. No habitat on site. California clapper rail Rallus longirostris obsoletus E E Saltmarshes and mangrove swamps (Cornell Lab of Ornithology 2012). None. No habitat on site. California least tern Sternula antillarum (=Sterna, =albifrons) browni E Seacoasts, beaches, bays, estuaries, lagoons, lakes and rivers, breeding on sandy or gravelly beaches and banks of rivers or lakes, rarely on flat rooftops of buildings (Cornell Lab of Ornithology 2012). None. No habitat on site. Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus D E Typically nest in forested areas adjacent to large bodies of water, staying away from heavily developed areas when possible. Tolerant of human activity when feeding, and may congregate around fish processing plants, dumps, and below dams where fish concentrate. For perching, bald eagles prefer tall, mature coniferous or deciduous trees that afford a wide view of the surroundings. In winter, they can also be seen in dry, open uplands if there is access to open water for fishing (Cornell Lab of Ornithology 2012). None. No habitat on site. Cackling (=Aleutian Canada) goose Branta hutchinsii leucopareia D – Breeds in coastal marshes, along tundra ponds and streams, and steep turf slopes above rocky shores (Cornell Lab of Ornithology 2012). None. No habitat on site. ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 4 BIOLOGICAL SETTING Biological Resources Assessment 1715 Elm Street Condominiums 28 Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status State Status CNPS Rare Plant Rank General Habitat Characteristics Potential to Be Affected by the Project California black rail Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus – T Nests in high portions of salt marshes, shallow freshwater marshes, wet meadows, and flooded grassy vegetation (Cornell Lab of Ornithology 2012). None. No habitat on site. Mammals Salt marsh harvest mouse Reithrodontomys raviventris E E Salt marshes with dense stands of pickleweed; adjacent to upland, salt-tolerant vegetation (USFWS 1984). None. No habitat on site. Key Federal & State Status Endangered - Listed as being in danger of extinction. Threatened - Listed as likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future. (NMFS) Species under the Jurisdiction of the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Service. Consult with them directly about these species. Critical Habitat - Area essential to the conservation of a species. Critical habitat designated for this species. Delisted CNPS Rare Plant Rank Rareness Ranks (1A) Presumed Extinct in California (1B) Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and Elsewhere Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California, But More Common Elsewhere More Species Information Needed ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 4 BIOLOGICAL SETTING 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Biological Resources Assessment 29 Key Limited Distribution Threat Ranks (0.1) Seriously threatened in California (0.2) Fairly threatened in California (0.3) Not very threatened in California ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 4 BIOLOGICAL SETTING Biological Resources Assessment 1715 Elm Street Condominiums 30 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Biological Resources Assessment 31 This chapter of the BRA discusses impacts to special-status natural communities and species with the potential to occur in the project study area. Potential effects to species are based on the pre-application subdivision exhibit; current project description; likelihood of each species to occur within the PSA; and each species’ biological growth, reproduction, feeding, resting, and cover requirements as appropriate. Each species is discussed, including results of surveys for the species, designated critical habitat for the species within the PSA (if applicable), avoidance and minimization measures proposed to avoid or reduce project-related impacts to the species, expected or potential project-related effects to the species, and cumulative effects to the species when considered with other proposed, completed, or reasonably foreseeable projects in the project vicinity. Project-related effects to plant and wildlife species can be direct, indirect, permanent, temporary, and cumulative. Direct impacts are those caused by the proposed project and occur at the time of project construction or implementation. Indirect effects are those that are caused by the proposed project and are reasonably certain to occur, but occur later in time. 5.1 STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE The impact analysis provided below is based on the following CEQA Guidelines Appendix G thresholds of significance: 1) 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 CDFW or USFWS. 2) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the CDFW or USFWS. 3) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the CWA (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. 4) 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. 5) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. 6) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION Biological Resources Assessment 1715 Elm Street Condominiums 32 7) Reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened plant or animal species or biotic community, thereby causing the species or community to drop below self-sustaining levels. 5.2 METHODOLOGY The impact assessment below discusses impacts from implementation of project activities. The impact assessment was based on the project description, information described in the project and biological setting, and the standards of significance described above. In addition, the impact analysis is organized by the significance criteria noted above: special-status plant and wildlife species, sensitive vegetation communities, federally protected wetlands, wildlife movement corridors, and compliance with local plans and policies, or existing habitat conservation plans. Each impact category includes a description of the specific potential impacts as well as avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures that can potentially reduce and mitigate potentially significant impacts. 5.3 IMPACTS TO CANDIDATE, SENSITIVE, OR SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES (STANDARD OF SIGNIFICANCE 1) Impact BIO-1 Implementation of project-related activities could result in substantial adverse effects, either directly or through habitat modifications, to special-status species, which would be considered a potentially significant impact. Several special-status species were identified by the database queries; however, the urban land uses on and adjacent to the proposed project site do not provide suitable habitat for any of the special-status plant species listed as occurring in the area. In addition, several wildlife species were identified. The majority of the species with the potential to occur in the project vicinity are associated with coastal habitats salt marshes, mangroves, brackish/estuarine waters). These habitats do not occur on-site; therefore, no impacts to special-status species associated with coastal habitats will occur. A few species associated with streams/creeks were identified as having the potential to occur in the project vicinity. The on-site surface water was historically a natural creek that was channelized for stormwater conveyance. A geographic information system (GIS) data layer was obtained from Contra Costa County (2007) that depicts the location and extent of creeks in El Cerrito. An analysis was conducted using the creek GIS layer and aerial photointerpretation of existing land uses to determine the extent of Baxter Creek that has been undergrounded. This analysis determined that Baxter Creek is approximately 9,550 feet in length, approximately 7,750 linear feet have been undergrounded, and 1,800 linear feet remain daylighted (Figure The on-site surface water represents approximately 115 linear feet of the daylighted segments. The special-status fish species associated with streams/creeks, which have the potential to occur in the project vicinity, are anadramous. Although Baxter Creek eventually drains into San Francisco Bay, approximately 1.25 miles of the creek is undergrounded between the project site and the bay. The extent of creek that is underground before reaching the property precludes the migration of any special-status fish species into the on-site surface water. In addition, the lack of natural connections to suitable habitat for the special-status amphibian ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Biological Resources Assessment 33 and reptile species associated with streams/creeks in the project vicinity, and the unsuitable habitat conditions within the on-site surface water, eliminate the potential for these species to occur on-site. Therefore, no impact to special-status species will occur as a result of the proposed project. The proposed project does, however, have the potential to impact migratory birds, raptors, and bats. Trees on and adjacent to the project site may provide suitable nesting habitat for birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, as well Sections 3503.5 and 3800–3806 of the Fish and Game Code. In addition, the abandoned structures on-site have the potential to provide suitable nesting habitat for protected birds, as well as roosting habitat for bats. The demotion of the abandoned structures and removal of trees during construction activities could result in noise, dust, human disturbance, and other direct/indirect impacts to nesting birds and roosting bats on or in the vicinity of the project site. Potential nest abandonment and mortality to eggs and chicks would be considered a potentially significant impact to protected bird species; however, implementation of mitigation measures MM-BIO-1 through MM-BIO-3 will reduce those impacts to a less than significant level. In addition, mortality of roosting bat species during construction would be considered a potentially significant impact; however, implementation of mitigation measure MM-BIO-4 will reduce those impacts to a less than significant level. 5.3.1 AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION MEASURES MM-BIO-1 Survey for Migratory Birds. If clearing and/or construction activities will occur during the migratory bird nesting season (April 15–August 15), preconstruction surveys for nesting migratory birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist, up to 14 days before initiation of construction activities. The qualified biologist shall survey the construction zone and a 250- foot radius surrounding the construction zone to determine whether the activities taking place have the potential to disturb or otherwise harm nesting birds. If active nest(s) are identified during the preconstruction survey, a qualified biologist shall monitor the nest to determine when the young have fledged. monitoring reports, documenting nest status, will be submitted to the City Planning Department until the nest(s) is deemed inactive. The biological monitor shall have the authority to cease construction if there is any sign of distress to a raptor or migratory bird. Reference to this requirement and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act shall be included in the construction specifications. MM-BIO-2 Survey for Active Raptor Nests. If construction activities will occur during nesting season for raptors (January 15–August 15), all suitable raptor nesting habitat within 0.5 mile of the impacted area will be surveyed for active raptor nests before construction activity commences. If an active raptor nest is located within 0.5 mile of the construction site, a no-activity buffer will be erected around the nest while it is active to protect the nesting raptors. This buffer distance may be ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION Biological Resources Assessment 1715 Elm Street Condominiums 34 amended to account for nests that are not within the line of sight of the construction activity. MM-BIO-3 Conduct Surveys for Bird Nests in Structures. If demolition of abandoned structures will take place during of the migratory bird nesting season (April 15–August 15), then, a survey for nesting migratory birds swallows, phoebes) will precede demolition. If bird nests are discovered in the structure, the building will not be removed until the nest(s) become inactive. MM-BIO-4 Conduct Surveys of Potential Bat Roosts. Demolition of abandoned structures will be preceded by a survey for bat presence. Structures being used by bats will not be removed until it has been determined that bats are no longer using the site or until demolition can be carried out without harming any bats. 5.4 IMPACTS TO RIPARIAN HABITAT OR SENSITIVE NATURAL COMMUNITIES (STANDARD OF SIGNIFICANCE 2) Sensitive habitats include those that are of special concern to resource agencies and those that are protected under CEQA, Section 1600 of the Fish and Game Code, and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The project proponent is proposing to underground the on-site surface water for the purposes of constructing new condominiums. This U-shaped feature is characterized by cobble reinforced sidewalls and bed, and is dominated by watercress (Nasturtium officinale). No riparian habitat is associated with this feature; therefore, this impact would be less than significant. ---PAGE BREAK--- Tributary of Baxter Creek Baxter Creek Source: Bing Maps, 2012; Contra Costa County, 2012; PMC, 2012 T:\_GIS\CONTRA_COSTA_COUNTY\MXDS\EL_CERRITTO\ELM_STREET\FIG CREEK.MXD - 10/26/2012 @ 1:11:32 PM 500 0 500 FEET Figure 5 Creek Map Legend Project Site Daylighted Underground ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION Biological Resources Assessment 1715 Elm Street Condominiums 36 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Biological Resources Assessment 37 5.5 IMPACTS TO FEDERALLY PROTECTED WETLANDS (STANDARD OF SIGNIFICANCE 3) Impact BIO-2 Implementation of project-related activities could result in the disturbance, degradation, and/or removal of federally protected wetlands, which would be considered a potentially significant impact. To date, a jurisdictional determination for the project has not been verified by any state or federal agencies. However, the on-site surface water is presumed to be jurisdictional to the USACE, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and CDFW. Authorization to place fill within the on-site jurisdictional feature may be required by the USACE, through the CWA Section 404 permitting process prior to project implementation. If a CWA Section 404 permit were to be required, a CWA Section 401 permit would be also required from the If it is determined that the on-site jurisdictional feature qualifies as waters of the state, and would be affected by the proposed project, the applicant would be required to obtain authorizations from the and the CDFW to fill/disturb these features prior to project implementation. Furthermore, construction-related impacts to water quality would be mitigated through the implementation of best management practices (BMPs). Implementation of mitigation measure MM-BIO-5 would reduce impacts to waters of the state and waters of the United States to a less than significant level. 5.5.1 AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION MEASURES MM-BIO-5 Mitigate for Loss of Waters of the United States. If the US Army Corps of Engineers identifies that the feature is jurisdictional, the project applicant shall ensure that the project will result in no net loss of waters of the United States by providing mitigation through impact avoidance, impact minimization, and/or compensatory mitigation for the impact, as determined in the CWA Section 404/401 permits and/or 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement. Compensatory mitigation may consist of obtaining credits from a mitigation bank; or making a payment to an in-lieu fee program that will conduct wetland, stream, or other aquatic resource restoration, creation, enhancement, or preservation activities. Evidence of compliance with this mitigation measure shall be provided prior to construction and grading activities for the proposed project. If the USACE verifies that the feature is not jurisdictional, no mitigation will be required. 5.6 IMPACTS TO THE MOVEMENT OF NATIVE RESIDENT OR MIGRATORY FISH OR WILDLIFE SPECIES OR WITHIN ESTABLISHED MIGRATORY CORRIDORS (STANDARD OF SIGNIFICANCE 4) Implementation of the proposed project would not interfere substantially with the movement of native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species. No established migratory routes are identified on or adjacent to the project site. Additionally, the on-site drainage feature has no natural connections to perennial features utilized by anadromous fish species. Due to the highly urbanized land uses in the project vicinity, it is unlikely that any significant aquatic or ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION Biological Resources Assessment 1715 Elm Street Condominiums 38 wildlife corridors exist in the project vicinity. Therefore, no impact will occur, and no mitigation is proposed. 5.7 CONFLICT WITH LOCAL POLICIES AND ORDINANCES (STANDARD OF SIGNIFICANCE 5) Impact BIO-8 Implementation of project-related activities may conflict with El Cerrito Municipal Code Chapter 19.12, which would be considered a potentially significant impact. The proposed project will result in the bridging/undergrounding of the on-site surface water for the purposes of constructing new condominiums. Therefore, the proposed activities would conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. The on-site surface water provides marginal habitat value for wildlife that may include utilization by local birds and mammals, as well as by feral/domesticated pets. As a result, bridging/undergrounding the on-site surface water would result in less than significant impacts to biological resources, and no mitigation is proposed. 5.8 CONFLICT WITH CONSERVATION PLANS (STANDARD OF SIGNIFICANCE 6) The proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. There are no adopted habitat conservation plans that overlap the PSA; therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with such plans, and no impact is anticipated. No avoidance and minimization measures are proposed. 5.9 SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES POPULATION IMPACTS (STANDARD OF SIGNIFICANCE 7) Implementation of project-related activities would not reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened plant or animal species or biotic community, thereby causing the species or community to drop below self-sustaining levels. As such, there would be no impact. Mitigation measures MM-BIO-1 through MM-BIO-9 will ensure that the proposed project does not reduce sensitive plant, wildlife, habitat, and/or other biological resources below self- sustaining levels. As such, there would be a less than significant impact, and no additional avoidance and minimization measures are proposed. ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 6 REFERENCES 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Biological Resources Assessment 39 Busby, P. T. C. Wainwright, G. J. Bryant, L. J. Lierheimer, R. S. Waples, F. W. Waknitz, and I. V. Lagomarsino. 1996. Status review of wet coast steel head from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. NOAA Technical Memorandum Seattle, WA. CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2012a. California Natural Diversity Database – October 2, 2012, update. CDFW Biogeographic Data Branch; Sacramento, CA. 2012b. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System (online edition). CDFW Biogeographic Data Branch; Sacramento, CA. Accessed October 17, 2012. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/wildlife_habitats.asp. CNPS (California Native Plant Society). 2012. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v8-01a). CNPS; Sacramento, CA. Accessed October 23, 2012. http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/. Contra Costa County, Mapping Information Center. 2007. http://www.ccmap.us/. Accessed October 2012. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 2012. All About Birds – Bird Guide (online edition). Cornell University; Ithaca, NY. Accessed October 22, 2012. El Cerrito. 2007. El Cerrito Municipal Code. http://www.el-cerrito.org/index.aspx?nid=119. Essig Museum of Entomology. 2012. California’s Endangered Insects (online edition). University of California, Berkeley; Berkeley, CA. Accessed October 22, 2012. Myers, J. M, R. G. Kope, G. J. Bryant, D. Teel, L. J. Lierheimer, T. C Wainwright, W. S. Grant, F. W. Waknitz, K. Neely, S. T. Lindley, and R. S. Waples. 1998. Status review of Chinook salmon from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. NOAA Technical Memorandum Nafis, Gary. 2012. California Herps: A Guide to Amphibians and Reptiles of California (online edition). Accessed October 22, 2012. NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2005. Green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris) status review update. NMFS Southwest Fish Science Center; Santa Cruz, CA. USACE (US Army Corps of Engineers). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1. US Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station; Vicksburg, MS. 2007. Jurisdictional Determination Form Instructional Guidebook. USACE and US Environmental Protection Agency. USFWS (US Fish and Wildlife Service). 1984. Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse and California Clapper Rail Recovery Plan. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Region; Portland, OR. 1995. Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Native Fishes Recovery Plan. US Fish and Wildlife Service. Portland, OR. 2005. Recovery Plan for the Tidewater Goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi). US Fish and Wildlife Service. Portland, OR. ---PAGE BREAK--- CHAPTER 6 REFERENCES Biological Resources Assessment 1715 Elm Street Condominiums 40 2012a. Sacramento Fish & Wildlife Office Species List (online edition). USFWS; Sacramento, CA. Accessed October 22, 2012. http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es_species/Lists/es_species_lists-form.cfm. 2012b. Critical Habitat Portal (online edition). Accessed October 22, 2012. http://criticalhabitat.fws.gov/crithab. Weitkamp, L. T. C. Wainwright, G. J. Bryant, G. B. Milner, D. J. Teel, R. G. Kope, and R. S. Waples. 1995. Status review of coho salmon from Washington, Oregon, and California. Seattle: NOAA Technical Memorandum ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX A - DATABASE RESULTS ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Sacramento Fish & Wildlife Office Federal Endangered and Threatened Species that Occur in or may be Affected by Projects in the RICHMOND (466A) U.S.G.S. 7 1/2 Minute Quad Database last updated: September 18, 2011 Report Date: October 17, 2012 Listed Species Invertebrates Speyeria callippe callippe callippe silverspot butterfly Fish Acipenser medirostris green sturgeon (NMFS) Eucyclogobius newberryi tidewater goby Hypomesus transpacificus delta smelt kisutch coho salmon - central CA coast (NMFS) mykiss Central California Coastal steelhead (NMFS) Central Valley steelhead (NMFS) Central Valley spring-run chinook salmon (NMFS) Critical habitat, winter-run chinook salmon (NMFS) winter-run chinook salmon, Sacramento River (NMFS) Amphibians Rana draytonii California red-legged frog Critical habitat, California red-legged frog Page 1 of 3 Unoffial Quick Endangered Species List, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office 10/17/2012 http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es_species/Lists/es_species-lists_quad-finder_quicklist.c... ---PAGE BREAK--- Reptiles Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus Alameda whipsnake [=striped racer] Critical habitat, Alameda whipsnake Birds Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus western snowy plover Pelecanus occidentalis californicus California brown pelican Rallus longirostris obsoletus California clapper rail Sternula antillarum (=Sterna, =albifrons) browni California least tern Mammals Reithrodontomys raviventris salt marsh harvest mouse Plants Arctostaphylos pallida pallid manzanita (=Alameda or Oakland Hills manzanita) Holocarpha macradenia Critical habitat, Santa Cruz tarplant Santa Cruz tarplant Suaeda californica California sea blite Key:
Endangered - Listed as being in danger of extinction.
Threatened - Listed as likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future.
Proposed - Officially proposed in the Federal Register for listing as Page 2 of 3 Unoffial Quick Endangered Species List, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office 10/17/2012 http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es_species/Lists/es_species-lists_quad-finder_quicklist.c... ---PAGE BREAK--- endangered or threatened.
(NMFS) Species under the Jurisdiction of the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Service. Consult with them directly about these species.
Critical Habitat - Area essential to the conservation of a species.
(PX) Proposed Critical Habitat - The species is already listed. Critical habitat is being proposed for it.
Candidate - Candidate to become a proposed species.
Vacated by a court order. Not currently in effect. Being reviewed by the Service.
Critical Habitat designated for this species Page 3 of 3 Unoffial Quick Endangered Species List, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office 10/17/2012 http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es_species/Lists/es_species-lists_quad-finder_quicklist.c... ---PAGE BREAK--- Occurrence Count Scientific Name Common Name Federal Listing State Listing 1 Antrozous pallidus pallid bat None None 1 Astragalus tener var. tener alkali milk-vetch None None 2 Danaus plexippus monarch butterfly None None 2 Fritillaria liliacea fragrant fritillary None None 1 nickliniana bridgesi Bridges' coast range shoulderband None None 1 Lasiurus cinereus hoary bat None None 3 Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus Alameda whipsnake Threatene d Threatene d 1 Melospiza melodia pusillula Alameda song sparrow None None 1 Suaeda californica California seablite Endanger ed None 1 Trifolium hydrophilum saline clover None None Occurrence Count Scientific Name Common Name Federal Listing State Listing 3 Amsinckia lunaris bent-flowered fiddleneck None None 5 Antrozous pallidus pallid bat None None 2 Archoplites interruptus Sacramento perch None None 3 Arctostaphylos pallida pallid manzanita Threatene d Endangere d 1 Asio flammeus short-eared owl None None 1 Astragalus tener var. tener alkali milk-vetch None None 1 Athene cunicularia burrowing owl None None 1 Branta hutchinsii leucopareia cackling (=Aleutian Canada) goose Delisted None 1 California round-leaved filaree None None 1 Calystegia purpurata ssp. saxicola coastal bluff morning-glory None None 1 Chloropyron maritimum ssp. palustre Point Reyes bird's-beak None None 2 Circus cyaneus northern harrier None None 1 Cirsium andrewsii Franciscan thistle None None 4 Danaus plexippus monarch butterfly None None 1 Dipodomys heermanni berkeleyensis Berkeley kangaroo rat None None 5 Dirca occidentalis western leatherwood None None 1 Egretta thula snowy egret None None 3 Elanus leucurus white-tailed kite None None 3 Emys marmorata western pond turtle None None 1 Eucyclogobius newberryi tidewater goby Endanger ed None 4 Fritillaria liliacea fragrant fritillary None None OUTPUT 1 Mile Count 5 Mile Count ---PAGE BREAK--- Occurrence Count Scientific Name Common Name Federal Listing State Listing 5 Mile Count 1 Haliaeetus leucocephalus bald eagle Delisted Endangere d 6 Helianthella castanea Diablo helianthella None None 4 nickliniana bridgesi Bridges' coast range shoulderband None None 1 Hoita strobilina Loma Prieta hoita None None 14 Holocarpha macradenia Santa Cruz tarplant Threatene d Endangere d 1 Hydroprogne caspia Caspian tern None None 1 Lasionycteris noctivagans silver-haired bat None None 2 Lasiurus cinereus hoary bat None None 4 Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus California black rail None Threatene d 30 Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus Alameda whipsnake Threatene d Threatene d 1 Meconella oregana Oregon meconella None None 4 Melospiza melodia pusillula Alameda song sparrow None None 5 Melospiza melodia samuelis San Pablo song sparrow None None 1 Microcina leei Lee's micro-blind harvestman None None 6 Microtus californicus sanpabloensis San Pablo vole None None 3 Northern Coastal Salt Marsh Northern Coastal Salt Marsh None None 1 Northern Maritime Chaparral Northern Maritime Chaparral None None 1 Nycticorax nycticorax black-crowned night heron None None 1 Nyctinomops macrotis big free-tailed bat None None 4 Rallus longirostris obsoletus California clapper rail Endanger ed Endangere d 3 Rana draytonii California red-legged frog Threatene d None 2 Reithrodontomys raviventris salt-marsh harvest mouse Endanger ed Endangere d 1 Sorex vagrans halicoetes salt-marsh wandering shrew None None 1 Suaeda californica California seablite Endanger ed None 3 Trifolium hydrophilum saline clover None None 1 Valley Needlegrass Grassland Valley Needlegrass Grassland None None 1 Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus yellow-headed blackbird None None ---PAGE BREAK--- Rare Plant Rank 1B.2 1B.2 1B.1 1B.2 Rare Plant Rank 1B.2 1B.1 1B.2 1B.1 1B.2 1B.2 1B.2 1B.2 1B.2 ---PAGE BREAK--- Rare Plant Rank 1B.2 1B.1 1B.1 1B.1 1B.1 1B.2 ---PAGE BREAK--- Scientific Name Common Name Rare Plant Rank Arctostaphylos pallida pallid manzanita 1B.1 Astragalus tener var. tener alkali milk-vetch 1B.2 Calystegia purpurata ssp. saxicola coastal bluff morning-glory 1B.2 Chloropyron maritimum ssp. palustre Point Reyes bird's-beak 1B.2 Dirca occidentalis western leatherwood 1B.2 Fritillaria liliacea fragrant fritillary 1B.2 Helianthella castanea Diablo helianthella 1B.2 Hoita strobilina Loma Prieta hoita 1B.1 Holocarpha macradenia Santa Cruz tarplant 1B.1 Meconella oregana Oregon meconella 1B.1 Streptanthus albidus ssp. peramoenus most beautiful jewel-flower 1B.2 Suaeda californica California seablite 1B.1 Trifolium hydrophilum saline clover 1B.2 CNPS RARE PLANT INVENTORY OUTPUT ---PAGE BREAK--- HISTORIC RESOURCE EVALUATION 1715 Elm Street El Cerrito, California December 2013 Prepared by San Francisco, California ---PAGE BREAK--- Historic Resource Evaluation 1715 Elm Street, El Cerrito, CA December 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction 1 II. Methods 2 III. Regulatory Framework 2 IV. Project Area V. Property Description VI. Historical Context VII. Evaluation of Historical Status 25 VIII. Evaluation of Project-specific Impacts 32 IX. Suggested Mitigation 39 X. Conclusion 41 XI. Bibliography 42 ---PAGE BREAK--- Historic Resource Evaluation 1715 Elm Street, El Cerrito, CA December 2013 1 I. Introduction VerPlanck Historic Preservation Consulting prepared this Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) for a prop- erty located at 1715 Elm Street in El Cerrito, California. The subject property, which is presently unoccu- pied, is located on the west side of Elm Street, between Hill and Blake streets (Assessor’s Parcel No. 502- 112-038) in north-central El Cerrito (Figure 1).1 The subject property is rectangular and comprises rough- ly 18,450 square feet. Historically utilized as a “weekend ranch,” the property is now surrounded by sin- gle-family dwellings dating from the immediate post-World War II era and more recent multi-family res- idential buildings from the 1970s and 1980s. Originally purchased by Ambrose Rodoni in 1897, the sub- ject property contains a Queen Anne-style, single-family dwelling constructed in 1897; a ca. 1930 gar- age; and several other outbuildings and site features, including a well house and shed constructed after 1969; and a stone-lined creek channel that transects the property from east to west. The property was the subject of a report prepared by architectural historian Michael Corbett in 2006. This HRE, which builds upon Corbett’s research, independently concludes that 1715 Elm Street appears eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) under Criterion 1 (Events) for its associations with the pioneer development of El Cerrito and the formation of the city’s Little Italy district. This HRE also finds the property eligible under Criterion 3 (Design/Construction) as an intact and very rare example of a rural vernacular cultural landscape in El Cerrito. As such, the property appears to be a historical resource under Section 15064.5 of the California Environmental Quality Act 1 The streets in this part of El Cerrito are not aligned with the points of the compass, meaning that Elm Street actually runs from northwest to southeast. To remain consistent with the proposed project and other project documents, this HRE will treat the site as if its boundaries are aligned with the compass. Figure 1. 1995 USGS Map showing location of 1715 Elm Street Source: University of California, Berkeley, Map Library ---PAGE BREAK--- Historic Resource Evaluation 1715 Elm Street, El Cerrito, CA December 2013 2 (CEQA). This HRE concludes with an assessment of the potential impacts of the proposed project, which entails the relocation of the Rodoni house to the southwest corner of the property, and the construction of a new 14-unit condominium building on the balance of the site; as well as suggested mitigation measures that may reduce the project impacts to a less-than-significant level. II. Methods Michael Corbett, the author of the 2006 report mentioned above, is one of the Bay Area’s most well- respected architectural historians. His research is typically reliable; hence this HRE relies in large part on the historic contexts outlined in his 2006 study. VerPlanck Historical Preservation Consulting conducted additional primary and secondary research to answer specific questions unanswered in Corbett’s report, including information on the unnamed creek that transects the property, as well as additional infor- mation on the Rodoni family and El Cerrito’s Little Italy neighborhood. We consulted the following re- positories to complete this additional work, including the El Cerrito Planning Division, the El Cerrito His- torical Society, and historic newspaper databases available through the Library of Congress, the San Francisco Public Library, and the Historic Newspaper Archive. We also consulted historic and contempo- rary maps, including late nineteenth and early twentieth-century United States Geological Society (USGS) maps and Sanborn Fire Insurance maps, several of which are reproduced in this HRE. Christopher VerPlanck visited the property on September 25, 2012 to survey the site with Scott Davidson of PMC and photographed every building, structure, and landscape feature, as well as the surrounding context. III. Regulatory Framework VerPlanck Historic Preservation Consulting searched federal, state, and local records to determine if 1715 Elm Street had been identified in any survey or official register of historical resources. We submit- ted a request to the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) at Sonoma State University to determine whether the property is listed in the state’s Historic Property Database and we also consulted with the El Cerrito Historical Society to determine whether the property is listed on any local register of historical resources. According to the NWIC, 1715 Elm Street is not listed in the state’s Historic Property Database. It is also not listed in the Contra Costa County Historic Resources Inventory. Furthermore, the City of El Cerrito has never been comprehensively surveyed and it maintains no official inventory of historical, architectural, or cultural resources. In summary, 1715 Elm Street has no formal historical status. IV. Project Area 1715 Elm Street is located in north-central El Cerrito, two blocks north and east of BART’s Richmond Line right-of-way (Figure The subject property is located about equidistant between Interstate 80 and the Berkeley Hills, which begin about two blocks north and east of the subject property. Historically a semi- rural area of small ranches and isolated single-family dwellings, the area immediately surrounding the property was built out during the post-World War II era as suburban development overtook the once semi-rural enclave of Little Italy. The project area is generally level, though the terrain slopes gently downhill toward the south and west in the direction of San Francisco Bay. The terrain slopes more stead- ily uphill toward the north and east in the direction of the Berkeley Hills. The street network is laid out in a conventional gridiron plan, though streets running in the same direction do not always align because of the different private subdivisions that subdivided the area during the late 1890s. Natural features like hills and ravines have resulted in some variations in the gridiron plan, and more recent planned unit de- velopments have resulted in cul-de-sacs and other pockets of non-orthogonal street plans. Commercial property uses are clustered along San Pablo Avenue, three blocks south and west of the subject proper- ---PAGE BREAK--- Historic Resource Evaluation 1715 Elm Street, El Cerrito, CA December 2013 3 ty. The El Cerrito del Norte BART station is located one block north and west of 1715 Elm Street. Another local landmark is the Windrush School, which is located a little more than a block distant. V. Property Description A. General Description 1715 Elm Street occupies what were historically three parcels (Lots 12, 13, 14) of Block B of the Schmidt Village subdivision. The subdivision was laid out in 1896 in a conventional gridiron pattern with each lot measuring 50’ wide by 130’ deep. Many of the older suburban areas of the East Bay were also laid out in this way, yielding generous house lots with enough room left over for a garage or stable, gardens, and tank house, windmill, or other outbuildings. Over time, Ambrose and Virginia Rodoni purchased the three adjoining lots, creating a landholding measuring 150’ along Elm Street (originally Union Street) and 130’ into the block. This property, comprising nearly half an acre, was sufficient to create a compact “weekend ranch” capable of supporting their growing family with homegrown produce, fruit, wine, and possibly livestock. Water from a well and the unnamed creek that transects the property was used to irrigate the crops and to provide drinking water, until the property was hooked up to municipal water in the 1940s. Until World War II, 1715 Elm Street was surrounded by similar semi-rural properties. Though the surrounding neighborhood suburbanized after the war, 1715 Elm Street remained a rural enclave – mainly because it stayed in the same family, whose members continued to cultivate the land until 2002. Although the property has been untended for a decade, it continues to embody the characteristics of a compact “ranch” dating to the pioneer era of El Cerrito’s settlement (Figure Figure 2. Aerial photograph showing the subject property and its vicinity Source: Google Maps; annotated by Christopher VerPlanck ---PAGE BREAK--- Historic Resource Evaluation 1715 Elm Street, El Cerrito, CA December 2013 4 Presently 1715 Elm Street contains four buildings: the main house, garage, well house, and shed; as well as several cultural landscape features, including a stone-lined creek channel, several footbridges over the creek, fencing, fruit trees, trellises for grape cultivation, and other features characteristic of rural agricultural properties. The 1897 house is located near the front of what was originally the central lot (Lot 13). To the rear of the house, near the west lot line, is a severely dilapidated wood-frame garage built before 1930. It is accessed by an unpaved driveway that enters the property north of the house. Between the house and the garage is a crude shed made of steel, wood, and fiberglass panels. The shed appears to be of relatively recent origin. A small, wood-frame well house is located at the southwest corner of the property, on the south bank of the creek. The unnamed creek, which roughly follows the former property line between Lots 13 and 14, appears on the 1895 and 1897 USGS maps. Though subsequently “undergrounded” throughout the rest of the neighborhood, the Rodoni family left the creek exposed on their land, though they straightened its channel by constructing stone retaining walls on either bank. Fruit trees – primari- ly apples, persimmons, and citrus – are located throughout the site. Portions of the south (Lot 14) and the north parcel (Lot 12) have irrigation equipment (pipes, spigots, and “rain bird” sprinklers) in- stalled, suggesting that these portions of the property were once planted with row crops. Wood fencing encloses the north, west, and south property lines, and older wire fencing encloses the east (Elm Street) side of the property. Elm Street was widened ca. 1960, and the City took a strip of the Rodoni property to build a sidewalk. At this time the family re- landscaped the front yard with concrete parterres, footpaths, and planting beds. Untended for a decade, much of the property is overgrown with weeds, volunteer trees and shrubs, and untended but still-productive fruit trees (Figure Figure 3. Overall view of 1715 Elm Street; view toward west Source: Christopher VerPlanck Figure 4. General site conditions; view toward east Source: Christopher VerPlanck ---PAGE BREAK--- Historic Resource Evaluation 1715 Elm Street, El Cerrito, CA December 2013 5 B. Rodoni House According to the 2006 Corbett report, the Rodoni house was constructed in 1897 by Ambrose Rodoni. Based on information from the Contra Costa County Assessor, it is the third-oldest building in El Cerrito. The Rodoni house is a two-story, wood-frame, T-plan, Queen-Anne style dwelling with a compound hip and gable roof. The house is of standard platform-frame construction and it is framed with 2 x 4 red- wood studs and 2 x 8 joists spaced 16” on center. The exterior walls are clad in V-groove redwood rustic siding and decorative shingles and the roof is clad in non-historic asphalt shingles. The dwelling consists of a main living floor over a raised and partially finished basement, with an unfinished attic above. In terms of its styling, the Rodoni house can be described as a vernacular dwelling with Queen Anne detail- ing. It is representative of a type of vernacular housing once common in the rural East Bay, and that is still found in some older parts of Oakland, Berkeley, and Alameda. East Façade The east (primary) façade of the Rodoni house is three bays wide and faces Elm Street (Figure The left bay has an angled bay window con- taining three, non-historic aluminum slider windows encased within plain wood moldings. This bay is capped by a pedimented gable defined by a molded raking cornice (Figure The flat area within the gable (the tym- panum) is clad in alternating courses of diamond and fish-scale-pattern shingles. The center bay is flush with the main body of the house, though it is sheltered beneath a projecting, gable-roofed porch supported by turned wood posts (Figure The porch is accessed by a flight of six wood steps bounded within plain wood balusters. It is capped by semi-circular arched openings and a pedimented gable whose tympa- num is also clad in alternating courses of diamond and fish-scale pattern shingles. The main entrance contains a solid-panel wood door, dating from the 1940s, which has wrought-iron hardware. The door is flanked to the left by a metal mailbox and an outdoor light fixture. The right bay is very simple, consist- ing of a single aluminum slider window with plain wood trim (Figure The basement level of the pri- mary façade is punctuated by an assortment of rectangular vents, water spigots, and utility meters. Figure 5. Primary façade; view toward west Source: Christopher VerPlanck ---PAGE BREAK--- Historic Resource Evaluation 1715 Elm Street, El Cerrito, CA December 2013 6 North Façade Similar to the other three non-street-facing façades, the north façade of the Rodoni house is utilitarian and devoid of ornament (Figure Aside from a boarded-up window at the basement level, the left bay is a windowless expanse of rustic redwood siding capped by a subsidiary hipped roof. At the basement level, the north façade steps back several feet to provide access to the utility rooms in this part of the house. In this recessed area, the second bay in from the street features a boarded-up entrance and an aluminum slider window. The third bay in from the street features a boarded-up window at the base- ment level and a large aluminum slider window at the first floor level. The basement level fenestration is sheltered beneath a shed-roofed porch supported by a single wood post. The fourth (right) bay in from the street is part of the later shed-roofed kitchen addition. It is windowless and clad in rustic redwood siding. Figure 6. Left bay of primary façade Source: Christopher VerPlanck Figure 7. Center bay of primary façade Source: Christopher VerPlanck ---PAGE BREAK--- Historic Resource Evaluation 1715 Elm Street, El Cerrito, CA December 2013 7 West Façade The west (rear) façade of the Rodoni house is characterized by an assemblage of older ad hoc additions added onto the back of the original dwelling. Entirely clad in redwood rustic siding, the rear façade has two shed-roofed additions (one housing part of the kitchen – the other a utility room) that span the width of the house (Figure 10). According to the permit record, these additions were added in 1907 and 1912, respectively. Attached to the rear of these additions is a later, gable-roofed mud room addition and wood stair supported by metal pipe columns. Figure 8. Right bay of primary façade Source: Christopher VerPlanck Figure 9. North façade Source: Christopher VerPlanck ---PAGE BREAK--- Historic Resource Evaluation 1715 Elm Street, El Cerrito, CA December 2013 8 South Façade The south façade of the Rodoni house is similar to the corresponding north façade (Figure 11). It is three bays wide, with the left bay corresponding to the rear kitchen addition. Clad in redwood rustic siding, this section of the south façade features a double-hung aluminum window at the first floor level. The center bay contains a pair of windows at the basement level (both are boarded-up) and a large aluminum slider window at the first floor level. The right bay is a largely blank expanse of redwood rustic siding, though there is a boarded-up window at the basement level. VerPlanck Historic Preservation Consulting did not survey the interior of the Rodoni house. The following description is extracted from Corbett’s 2006 report. The Rodoni house was built in 1897. It is a two-story structure with a high, open attic space. Although its lower floor is almost entirely above ground, this floor is generally referred to as a basement. Thus, this building with enough space for rooms on three floors was built with finished interiors only on the raised main floor; the basement was long utilized as a work space, including making wine and canning fruit and vegetables, and the attic space was never finished or utilized unless, perhaps, for storage. When this Figure 10. Rear (west) façade Source: Christopher VerPlanck Figure 11. South façade Source: Christopher VerPlanck ---PAGE BREAK--- Historic Resource Evaluation 1715 Elm Street, El Cerrito, CA December 2013 9 house was built, it was common to provide unfinished space that might later be occupied to accommodate a growing family or when money was available to do the work. In the 1940s the rear of the basement was finished to provide rooms and a bath for a divorced relative. The main floor plan is somewhat symmetrical in the overall form of a with the cross bar presenting a wide front to the street and the narrower stem projecting toward the rear. It consists of a generally central corridor with a room on either side at the front of the house and a narrow bathroom behind the front room at the corner. Partitions have been removed behind the front rooms so that what was once two rooms in the stem of the is now a single irregular space. At the rear of the house are two small shed additions that now house the kitchen and a utility room. These may have been added in unspecified remodelings in 1907 and 1912 noted on the Residential Building Record. The central hall plan was typical of houses of its era. The maximum dimensions of the house are approximately 31 1/2 feet across the front and 48 feet from the front to back. Downstairs, there is a bedroom, a living room, and a bathroom in the stem, created in 1954. Under the front of the house is an unfinished work space. The attic is high enough to accommodate a room, if a dormer were added for light and stairs for access. The structure of the room, without columns or low trusses that obstruct the space, indicates that such a possibility was initially contemplated. The house was long provided with water from a well on the property; city water was hooked up in the 1940s. It appears that there was no electricity available in the area until 1911-13, after which knob and tube wiring was installed. Heat orginally came only from a stove on the north side behind the front room and bath, where a brick chimney is still visible. Building Department records show that a forced air furnace was installed in 1965. Original interior finishes included painted tongue-and-groove paneling on walls and ceiling. This was all replaced in 1968. Today there are no original interior features.2 C. Garage Located behind the house, the garage was built before 1930 by the Rodoni family to provide shelter for their vehicles and possibly farm equipment (Figure 12). It is a one-story, wood-frame, rectangular-plan building measuring 19’ by 21’ in plan. It has a concrete perimeter foundation and a concrete slab floor. The building is of post-and-beam construction and it is clad in vertical wood planks with thin battens concealing the gaps between the boards. The north façade, which has a small lean-to addition, is clad in non-historic corrugated metal siding. The roof is covered in rolled asphalt. The exterior has one boarded up window on the south façade. The interior, which has space for two vehicles, is accessed via a pair of hinged wood doors on the east façade. A metal electrical pole is mounted to the primary façade. Next to it is a metal gooseneck light fixture. 2 Michael Corbett, Historic and Architectural Assessment of the Rodoni Family Property, 1715 Elm Street, El Cerrito (Berkeley, CA: 2006), 3. ---PAGE BREAK--- Historic Resource Evaluation 1715 Elm Street, El Cerrito, CA December 2013 10 D. Shed Located between the Rodoni house and the garage is an open-ended steel and wood-frame shed clad in wood and fiberglass panels (Figure 13). It encloses an 11’ x 17’ interior that is open to the elements at the north side of the structure. This structure was built after 1969 to shelter farm equipment or a vehicle. The structure is supported by metal pipe columns and wood studs. The walls are clad in corrugated metal and fiberglass panels and the ceiling, which is supported by wood rafters, is clad in corrugated steel. There is a wood pedestrian door on the west façade. The floor is packed earth. E. Well House The well house is located near the southwest corner of the property (Figure 14). Possibly built after 1968, when the original windmill and tank house were demolished, the small building encloses an interior space measuring 5’ x The building is of wood-frame construction and is clad in redwood rustic siding. The building has a concrete slab floor with a hole that sits directly above the well. At one point it probably contained an electric pump. The building appears to have been built of salvaged materials, perhaps from the old tank house that stood near here. The building’s interior is accessed by a salvaged wood-panel door and the interior contains remnants of old knob-and-tube wiring. At one point the building had a corrugated fiberglass roof, which is now missing. Figure 12. Garage; view toward north Source: Christopher VerPlanck ---PAGE BREAK--- Historic Resource Evaluation 1715 Elm Street, El Cerrito, CA December 2013 11 Figure 13. Shed; view toward south Source: Christopher VerPlanck Figure 14. Well House; view toward southwest Source: Christopher VerPlanck ---PAGE BREAK--- Historic Resource Evaluation 1715 Elm Street, El Cerrito, CA December 2013 12 F. Creek The unnamed creek that runs through the southern third of the property is arguably the most distinctive feature of 1715 Elm Street (Figures 15 and 16). In addition to appearing on nineteenth-century USGS maps, the Contra Costa County Assessor shows the unnamed creek on its GIS maps, indicating that it is not simply a ditch but an actual creek. The creek is about 10’ wide at the top of the stone-banked chan- nel and between 4’ and 5’ deep. The creek, which was flowing when the author visited the site, enters the property from the east, exiting a culvert that passes beneath Elm Street. The creek “daylights” on the Elm Street side of the property, where it is contained within a manmade channel bounded by dry- laid stone walls. The stone is not uniformly dressed and appears to have been installed to keep the creek within its bed and prevent erosion. The creek exits the property to the west, where it passes beneath a fence and enters a culvert beneath the adjoining property. The creek does not appear to daylight any- where else between the subject property and the creek’s presumed outlet at San Francisco Bay.3 The creek is bridged at several places by non-historic wood bridges, metal pipes, and scrap lumber. Sanborn maps from 1930 and 1951 show a wood-frame enclosure covering the western third of the creek. The purpose of this structure is unknown and it either fell down or was demolished after 1960. The creek was a functional feature of the property and was evidently used for irrigation long after the Rodoni house was hooked up to municipal water in the 1940s. 3 The 1895 and 1898 USGS maps show the unnamed creek (as well as several others in the area) running down from the Berkeley Hills, branch- ing into several subsidiary creeks, and then dissipating in the level coastal plain. This part of El Cerrito is known for its high water tables, and it is possible that these creeks were either seasonal or that they just died out in the high water table, not reaching San Francisco Bay. Figure 15. Creek and bridge, looking southwest Source: Christopher VerPlanck ---PAGE BREAK--- Historic Resource Evaluation 1715 Elm Street, El Cerrito, CA December 2013 13 VI. Historical Context A. Historical Background of El Cerrito El Cerrito is a city of 23,549 people in western Contra Costa County. The suburban city is bordered by Richmond to the north, east, and west and Albany and Kensington to the south. Long a semi-rural stronghold, due in part to uncertainty over land titles dating back to the Gold Rush, El Cerrito only began to grow in earnest after the 1906 Earthquake. Still, rural and semi-rural conditions persisted in parts of the city until World War II, when a massive influx of war workers employed in the shipyards of nearby Richmond caused the population of El Cerrito to explode. Today the city is almost entirely built-out, with very few opportunities to construct new housing on open land. Early History Prior to the arrival of Spanish colonists in the last quarter of the eighteenth century, what is now El Cer- rito was inhabited by the Huchuin tribelet of the Ohlone people, who hunted, fished, and practiced pro- to-agriculture along the banks of Cerrito and Wildcat Creeks, and San Francisco Bay. After the Spanish arrived in the Bay Area in 1769, what is now El Cerrito became part of the lands of Mission Dolores, in San Francisco. In 1823, following Mexico’s successful War of Independence from Spain, the Mexican Governor of California, Luís Antonio Argüello, granted 17,939 acres of land in present-day Contra Costa County to Francisco María Castro, a Spanish soldier and one-time alcalde of the Pueblo of San José. Fol- lowing his death in 1831, the grant was reconfirmed by Governor José Figueroa to Castro’s heirs, includ- Figure 16. Detail of stone retaining wall Source: Christopher VerPlanck ---PAGE BREAK--- Historic Resource Evaluation 1715 Elm Street, El Cerrito, CA December 2013 14 ing his son Victor Castro. In 1839, Victor Castro built an adobe dwelling on what is now the site of the El Cerrito Plaza shopping center.4 The United States conquered northern Mexico and annexed it to the United States in 1848 – the same year that gold was discovered at Sutter’s Mill in the Sierra foothills. The population of San Francisco and the Bay region in general began to grow very quickly due to the Gold Rush. Statehood followed two years later, in 1850, and that same year Contra Costa County became one of California’s original 27 counties. During this time what is today’s San Pablo Avenue became a popular road between Oakland, in neighboring Alameda County (formed in 1853 from parts of Contra Costa and Santa Clara counties), and Martinez, the county seat of Contra Costa County. Still, coastal Contra Costa County remained mostly uninhabited until the opening of the California & Ne- vada Railroad in 1883, which paralleled San Pablo Avenue from its terminus in Emeryville to Richmond. This route, which closely followed what is now BART’s Richmond line, opened western Contra Costa County to settlement and industrial development. In 1902, the Santa Fe Railroad purchased the line and upgraded it from narrow to standard gauge, linking what is now El Cerrito to the world via the Santa Fe’s transcontinental network.5 After the opening of the California & Nevada Railroad, settlers began to lease land from Victor Castro, still one of the biggest landowners in what is now El Cerrito. One of these settlers was a man named Wil- liam F. Rust, a German immigrant, who in 1883 leased land from Castro on San Pablo Road, near the Al- ameda County line (El Cerrito Creek). Eventually a village, named Rust, began to grow up around the in- tersection of San Pablo and Central avenues. Rust was one of several villages to grow up in what is now El Cerrito, which at various times also included the settlements of Gallagher, Stege, Stege Junction, Gills, McAvoys, Schmidtville, and others. Many of these settlements were nothing more than a railroad stop and a handful of houses and most of these names have long since fallen out of use. The subject property was part of Schmidtville because it was closest to a flag stop on the Santa Fe line called Schmidt. Even with the opening of the California & Nevada Railroad, it took another decade for large-scale subdi- vision activity to get underway in El Cerrito. The lag stemmed in part from ongoing confusion over who owned the land that comprised Rancho San Pablo. When Francisco Castro died in 1831, he left his prop- erty to his widow, Gabriella (50 percent), and his 11 children (50 percent). Each of his children received an undivided interest in the property, meaning that each of his children owned a 1/22nd interest in every square inch of Rancho San Pablo. Though his children were required to consult with each other before selling any land, several made unauthorized sales. Some tracts were sold more than once to different people and three of Castro’s children died intestate, meaning that their shares reverted to Gabriella, further complicating matters. The Gordian knot of twisted land titles was not resolved until 1894, when Judge J.C.B Hebbard issued a Final Decree of Partition on March 3. The Final Decree provided a list of every landowner within the boundaries of Rancho San Pablo as well as a map depicting each holding and its boundaries. The map indicates that with the exception of several small-scale holdings around Rust, most of El Cerrito remained in several large landholdings. Most of these parcels were evidently leased to tenant farmers who used the land for grazing cattle or growing crops.6 4 Michael Corbett, Historic and Architectural Assessment of the Rodoni Family Property, 1715 Elm Street, El Cerrito (Berkeley, CA: 2006), 9. 5 Tom Panas, Draft Historic Context Statement: City of El Cerrito (unpublished manuscript located at the El Cerrito Historical Society, 2011), 38-9. 6 Ibid., 25. ---PAGE BREAK--- Historic Resource Evaluation 1715 Elm Street, El Cerrito, CA December 2013 15 With the question of land ownership finally resolved in 1894, individual speculators began buying large tracts and subdividing them into smaller parcels ranging in size from 25’ x 100’ house lots to larger “vil- la” lots of up to five acres. The earliest subdivision in El Cerrito was the Schmidt & Fink Tract of 1893. Encompassing most of the land on the east side of San Pablo Avenue between Moeser and Schmidt lanes, the Schmidt & Fink Tract was laid out in one-acre parcels suitable for residential development or small-scale ranching or farming. This tract was soon followed by the Beauty Tract in 1894, Schmidt Vil- lage in 1896, and Schmidt Village Tracts 2 and 3 in 1900.7 The population of the East Bay spiked after the 1906 Earthquake and Fire destroyed much of San Fran- cisco. Relatively undamaged, the cities of Oakland, Alameda, and Berkeley – as well as unincorporated parts of Alameda and Contra Costa Counties – absorbed thousands of earthquake refugees. Some of these newcomers came to what is now El Cerrito. Still, as late as 1908, local city directories indicate that there were only around 100 households in El Cerrito. Nonetheless, census schedules from 1910 indicate a small but steadily growing community of quarry workers, railroad employees, ranch hands, and nurse- rymen, including a diverse assortment of Italian, French, Portuguese, Irish, Russian, German, English, Canadian, Swedish, and Japanese immigrants, as well as several dozen native-born Americans. Several of the city’s oldest houses were constructed during this pioneer period of El Cerrito’s history – the 12 year period from the Partition Decree of 1894 to the 1906 Earthquake.8 El Cerrito Incorporates In 1916, the residents of Rust, the only remaining urbanized part of what is now El Cerrito since Stege was annexed by Richmond in 1912, decided to rename their unincorporated community “El Cerrito,” in honor of Cerrito Creek and nearby El Cerrito Hill (now called Albany Hill).9 In 1917, the residents of unin- corporated El Cerrito began lobbying Contra Costa County for services, including paved streets, utilities, schools, and other infrastructure. Unsuccessful in these efforts, local residents realized that the commu- nity would either have to incorporate or join an existing city. Although some residents were in favor of annexation by Richmond, others thought that El Cerrito should be its own city. As momentum grew in favor of incorporation, advocates drew up maps of the new city that encompassed all of southwestern Contra Costa County, including the Richmond Annex and Kensington communities. Large property own- ers in Kensington opposed incorporation on the grounds that agricultural ventures would be disrupted. Richmond, which had long viewed the Richmond Annex as being within its own sphere of influence, suc- cessfully beat back El Cerrito’s attempts to include the area within the new city (Figure 17). With Ken- sington and the Richmond Annex excluded, the remaining residents voted in favor of incorporation on August 16, 1917. Four days later, El Cerrito formally became the tenth city in Contra Costa County.10 El Cerrito grew slowly, increasing to only 1,505 in 1920 – an uptick of only 73 people since incorporation. Despite the availability of transit, a salubrious climate, and inexpensive real estate, there was simply too much land available in the more established cities of Richmond, Berkeley, and Albany to inspire people to move to El Cerrito. In contrast to the rest of the East Bay, El Cerrito remained a preserve of the small agriculturalist and the “weekend rancher.” Growth picked up during the nationwide real estate boom of the 1920s, with El Cerrito’s population doubling to 3,808 in 1930. Despite the onset of the Depression in 1929, El Cerrito continued to grow – mostly because of an influx of defense workers employed in the 7 Ibid., 28. 8 Contra Costa County Assessor’s Office, “Contra Costa County and El Cerrito Building Dates” (unpublished database at the El Cerrito Historical Society). 9 Tom Panas, Draft Historic Context Statement: City of El Cerrito (unpublished manuscript located at the El Cerrito Historical Society, 2011), 18. 10 Ibid., 21. ---PAGE BREAK--- Historic Resource Evaluation 1715 Elm Street, El Cerrito, CA December 2013 16 shipyards of nearby Richmond. Because of this influx, the population doubled again in 1940, reaching 6,514. The influx continued unabated until the end of World War II, with new residents taking up resi- dence in trailer camps, hastily converted in-law apartments, and temporary war workers’ housing. By the 1950s, El Cerrito had been completely transformed from a semi-rural enclave into a modern, mid- century suburb. B. Project Site History The Rodoni property is part of the Schmidt Village subdivision, a 600- acre tract of former rangeland and wheat fields subdivided in 1896 by Berkeley postmaster and capitalist, George Schmidt.11 When combined with the earlier Schmidt & Fink Tract of 1893, Schmidt’s holdings formed a large U-shaped tract extending north and east from San Pablo Avenue along Hill Street, and then southeast – following an imaginary line along the base of the Berkeley Hills (paral- leling Navellier Lane) – and then back to San Pablo Avenue along Schmidt Lane (excepting the “donut hole” bounded by San Pablo Avenue, Blake Street, Navellier Street, and Donal Avenue) (Figure 18). As previ- ously mentioned, the subject prop- erty comprises Lots 12, 13, and 14 of Block of the Schmidt Village sub- division, an area of smaller house lots measuring 50’ x 130’ near the California & Nevada Railroad tracks. Much of the rest of the Schmidt Vil- lage subdivision consisted of larger “villa” lots of between two and six acres. In addition to the lot lines, streets, and railroads, the subdivi- sion map shows the Schmidt Village School on San Pablo Avenue, as well as several unnamed creeks – labeled as “ravines” on the map. In June 1897, an Italian immigrant from Milan named Ambrose Rodoni (originally spelled Rodone) pur- chased Lot 13 of Block B of the Schmidt Village subdivision from George Schmidt. Not long after, he be- gan building a house on the 50’ x 130’ lot. In December 1897, he transferred the property and improve- 11 “Postmaster George Schmidt, Now Considered Leading Capitalist,” Oakland Tribune (May 5, 1907). Figure 17. 1894 Partition Map showing original boundaries of El Cerrito Source: El Cerrito Historical Society ---PAGE BREAK--- Historic Resource Evaluation 1715 Elm Street, El Cerrito, CA December 2013 17 ments to his wife, Virginia Bonnini Rodoni.12 It is not known who designed or built the house, though Michael Corbett speculates in his 2006 study that because Rodoni had once worked as a carpenter, that he may have participated in its design and/or construction.13 An extensive search for building contracts bearing Rodoni’s name in the Oakland Tribune failed to yield any evidence that he hired anyone to build the house, buttressing Corbett’s claim that it was probably designed and built by Rodoni himself. Ambrose and Virginia Rodoni Based on U.S. Census records, newspapers, and passenger lists, it can be established that Ambrose Rodoni was born in 1866 in Lombardy and that he immigrated to the United States in 1887 when he was 21 years old. The spelling of his name varied widely; according to the 1900 Census records his name was 12 Contra Costa County Assessor’s Office, as cited in Michael Corbett, Historic and Architectural Assessment of the Rodoni Family Property, 1715 Elm Street, El Cerrito (Berkeley, CA: 2006), 6. 13 Michael Corbett, Historic and Architectural Assessment of the Rodoni Family Property, 1715 Elm Street, El Cerrito (Berkeley, CA: 2006), 3. Figure 18. Map of Schmidt Village subdivision, 1896; subject property in blue Source: Contra Costa County Assessor’s Office and the El Cerrito Historical Society ---PAGE BREAK--- Historic Resource Evaluation 1715 Elm Street, El Cerrito, CA December 2013 18 spelled “Ambus Rodone.” In city directories and newspaper articles his surname was also commonly spelled “Rodini” and his first name “Ambrogio.” By 1920 he seems to have settled on “Ambrose Rodo- ni,” which is the spelling used in this HRE. After immigrating to the United States, Rodoni made his way to California, where he worked at a lumber camp near Cazadero, in Sonoma County. There he met other Italian immigrants, including the three Bonnini brothers. The brothers apparently sent to Italy for their sister Virginia to travel to California to marry their friend Ambrose. Their first child, Mary, was born in November 1894 and the couple married shortly thereafter in 1895.14 The 1900 Census records Ambrose Rodoni as being 33 years old and employed as a farm laborer in Con- tra Costa County’s Township 7 (El Cerrito). According to the 1900 Census, Ambrose and Virginia had three children: an 18-year old son named Joseph, a 5-year-old daughter named Mary, and a 2-year-old daughter named Josie. Joseph, who had just arrived from Italy and was employed locally as a quarry worker, did not speak English. Mary and Josie were both born in California. If Joseph was actually Am- brose’s son, he must have been the of an earlier marriage or relationship because he was only four years younger than his “mother,” Virginia and if his age is correctly noted on the Census schedules his father would have only been 15 when Joseph was born!15 More likely, Joseph was a relative who was sponsored by the Rodoni family and the Census enumerator did not understand the relationship. According to the 1910 Census, Ambrose and Virginia had four more children – all sons: John (born 1902), Joseph (born 1903), Louis (born 1904), and Ernest (born 1907). In 1910, Ambrose, now 44 years old, worked at a nearby rock quarry. The Census schedules indicate that the family lived on Union Street, though no house number was given, indicating the still-rural character of El Cerrito.16 Aside from the house, not much is known about the earliest physical characteristics of the Rodoni prop- erty, primarily because there are no Sanborn maps dating back this far for this part of Contra Costa County. However, it is known that the Rodoni family purchased the adjoining lot to the south (Lot 14) in 1902.17 This purchase would have given them control over the unnamed creek and it was probably around this time that they built the stone walls to better-define its channel. Because this part of El Cerri- to did not have municipal water until the 1940s, it is certain that the Rodoni family had a well and prob- ably also a tank house by this time. A tank house, a typical feature of rural California during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, was a two or three-story, wood-frame structure with a room below and a water tank made of wood staves above. Elevating the tank as high as possible above ground allowed stored water to be distributed with adequate water pressure. The earliest graphic depiction of 1715 Elm Street can be found on the 1915 USGS map (Figure 19). The map plainly shows the Rodoni family’s house located just north of the unnamed creek that passes through their property. The map indicates that the surrounding area had been laid out in a semi-regular 14 Michael Corbett, Historic and Architectural Assessment of the Rodoni Family Property, 1715 Elm Street, El Cerrito (Berkeley, CA: 2006), 6. 15 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Twelfth Census of the United States: Contra Costa County Supervisor’s District No. 1, Enumeration District 407, Sheet 2. 16 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Thirteenth Census of the United States: Contra Costa County Seventh Township, Enu- meration District 172, Sheet 8. 17 Contra Costa County Assessor’s Office, as cited in Michael Corbett, Historic and Architectural Assessment of the Rodoni Family Property, 1715 Elm Street, El Cerrito (Berkeley, CA: 2006), 6. ---PAGE BREAK--- Historic Resource Evaluation 1715 Elm Street, El Cerrito, CA December 2013 19 gridiron pattern of streets. Most of the surrounding area –identified as “Schmidt” on the map – re- mained rural, with very few other houses. According to the 1915-16 Richmond and Martinez City Directory, the Rodoni family (spelled “Rodini”) lived on Union Street in Schmidtville. Ambrose’s occupation was listed as “laborer” and Virginia kept house. Three children still lived at home, including John, a student; Josie, a box maker; and Mary, an in- spector at the Pacific Cartridge Company. Subsequent city directories listed a revolving cast of family members living on and off at the property. Occupations of family members changed almost yearly.18 The 1920 Census lists Ambrose and Virginia in residence at Union Street, along with four of their sons: John (age 19), a wire painter at a cap works (explosives) factory; Joseph (age 17), a laborer at the same cap works factory; Louis (age 15); and Ernest (age 13). The Census schedules indicate that the property was mortgaged, suggesting that the family had borrowed against it to make improvements or to purchase additional property. In contrast to earlier Census schedules, the 1920 Census recorded that neither Am- brose nor Virginia could speak English.19 The 1922 City Directory was the earliest to list the Rodoni property by address (1509 Union Street). Throughout the early 1920s, John, Joseph, Louis, and Ernest continued to live at home with their parents, which at the time was customary for unmarried adult children. Like their father, they were all employed as laborers. By 1923, John, Joseph, and Louis were all employed by the Santa Fe Railroad as car builders in the company’s Richmond car shop. By 1926, John and Joseph had mar- ried and moved out of their par- ents’ house. Between 1926 and 1929, Ernest and Louis remained the only children living at home. According to City Directories, Ernest was employed as an upholsterer (probably in the Santa Fe Railroad’s car shop), and Louis as a carpenter. Ambrose continued to be listed as a laborer.20 Because no employer was listed, he was likely a day laborer, meaning he worked informally on individual jobs for a variety of indi- 18 R.L. Polk and Company, Richmond and Contra Costa County Directory (Oakland: various years). 19 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Fourteenth Census of the United States: Contra Costa County Seventh Township – El Cerrito City, Enumeration District 17, Sheet 11. 20 R.L. Polk and Company, Richmond and Contra Costa County Directory (Oakland: various years). Figure 19. Section of 1915 USGS San Francisco North Quad showing the Rodoni house (indicated by small blue arrow) Source: University of California Berkeley ---PAGE BREAK--- Historic Resource Evaluation 1715 Elm Street, El Cerrito, CA December 2013 20 viduals and not as an employee of a company. Little Italy The 1920 Census schedules reveal an increasing concentration of Italian immigrants in north-central El Cerrito, the area then known as “Schmidt” or “Schmidtville.” Whereas the 1900 and 1910 Census sched- ules revealed an astonishing amount of ethnic diversity in the area, by 1920 of 50 individuals, only six residents in the local area were not Italian or of Italian descent. Most were recent arrivals, many having immigrated to the United States within the previous decade. Nearly all heads-of-household and adult male children were employed as laborers in nearby factories or quarries, or as railroad workers em- ployed by the Santa Fe Railroad. Contemporary newspapers began commenting on the large number of Italians in Schmidtville, and by the 1920s the area was known as “Little Italy.” The Italian community’s business district was centered at the intersection of San Pablo and Potrero avenues. Like Ambrose Rodoni, many came from Lombardy and nearly all were low or unskilled laborers employed by local in- dustries in El Cerrito and nearby Richmond. Employers included several different quarries, Technical Porcelain and China Company (TEPCO), California Cap Works, Metropolitan Match Company, Stauffer Chemical Company, Vulcan Powder Works, the Santa Fe Railroad’s car shop, Standard Oil, and many other firms in the growing industrial belt of western Contra Costa County.21 Though most Italians were employed in industry, many apparently held on to aspects of their rural up- bringing on weekends and evenings. Some local Italians, including the Rodoni family, pieced together plots of land where they could farm, raise animals, make wine, and can or pickle vegetables and fruit. In addition to preserving Italian folkways, such activities supplemented the resources available to people with meagre incomes. Many members of El Cerrito’s Italian community were related. Indeed, many came from the same re- gion of Lombardy, near Milan. El Cerrito’s Italians were famously close-knit and many immigrants never learned to speak English – they didn’t need to – most were employed in unskilled or low-skilled jobs where anything beyond rudimentary English was unnecessary. Furthermore, El Cerrito’s immigrant Ital- ians were numerous enough that they could form their own self-contained society, where they could patronize their own businesses, attend their own churches (St. John the Baptist), and socialize at their own clubs (Italian Catholic Federation and the Galileo Club). Winemaking was a major hobby of El Cerri- to’s Italian population, so much that streetcar conductors referred to the intersection of San Pablo and Potrero avenues as “Grappa Junction.”22 The name “Little Italy” seems to have adhered to this part of El Cerrito from the 1920s until the 1950s, when widespread suburbanization (which brought in hundreds of non-Italian residents), assimilation of the American-born of Italian immigrants, and inter- marriage between members of different ethnic groups, began to dissolve immigrant enclaves like El Cer- rito’s Little Italy, and others like it across the United States. Aside from a strip on either side of San Pablo Avenue, most of the Schmidtville area was still too sparsely developed to be included on the 1926 Sanborn maps for El Cerrito. According to the Contra Costa Coun- ty Assessor’s records, Virginia and Ambrose Rodoni purchased a third lot – the adjoining lot to the north (Lot 12) – which enlarged the subject property to its present dimensions of 150’ x 130’.23 As mentioned 21 Tom Panas, Draft Historic Context Statement: City of El Cerrito (unpublished manuscript located at the El Cerrito Historical Society, 2011), 53. 22 Ibid., 55. 23 Contra Costa County Assessor’s Office, as cited in Michael Corbett, Historic and Architectural Assessment of the Rodoni Family Property, 1715 Elm Street, El Cerrito (Berkeley, CA: 2006), 7. ---PAGE BREAK--- Historic Resource Evaluation 1715 Elm Street, El Cerrito, CA December 2013 21 previously, larger rural lots were still plentiful on the fringes of the urbanized core of the Bay Area dur- ing the early twentieth century. Even in subdivisions where lots measured only 25’ wide, people would purchase multiple adjoining lots to provide space for a house, a small orchard or vineyard, pasture, and/or space for row crops (along with associated outbuildings). This trend, coupled with El Cerrito’s late start toward development, perpetuated El Cerrito’s semi-rural character well into the middle of the twentieth century. And in the years before widespread automobile ownership, these “weekend ranch- ers” could still easily commute to jobs in nearby cities via transit, including the East Shore & Suburban Railway, which ran from the Alameda/Contra Costa County line, along San Pablo Avenue, and then down MacDonald Avenue into downtown Richmond. 1930 Sanborn Map The 1930 Sanborn Fire Insurance Company’s 1930 map series for Richmond includes much of adjoining El Cerrito, including the subject property (Figure 20). This earliest known detailed depiction of the sub- ject property shows conditions similar to what exist today. The map shows the Rodoni house at the cen- ter of the property, with the bulk of the other structures directly behind the house, suggesting that the outbuildings were constructed before the Rodoni family acquired the adjoining lots. Visible behind the house are a one-story garage, a tank house, a windmill, a well, and a one-story shed that appears to en- close a portion of the creek. The map indicates that the surrounding Schmidtville/Little Italy district re- mained semi-rural, with only six houses on the west side of Union Street (now Elm Street) – only one more than had been shown on the 1915 USGS map. Nearly every residential property had a tank house, indicating that municipal water service had not yet arrived in this part of El Cerrito. Further away from San Pablo Avenue, the area was even more rural, with dairies, chicken ranches, and nurseries appearing on the 1930 Sanborn maps. Figure 20. Section of Map 319, Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, Richmond, California, 1930 Source: San Francisco Public Library; annotated by Christopher VerPlanck ---PAGE BREAK--- Historic Resource Evaluation 1715 Elm Street, El Cerrito, CA December 2013 22 Published the same year, the 1930 Census schedules reveal that all of the Rodoni children had moved out of the house, with the exception of Ernest (age 23), who was employed in construction. By this time both Virginia (age 54) and Ambrose (age 64) were retired. They owned their property free and clear, which at that time was valued at $800. The 1930 Census schedules indicate that the Schmidtville/Little Italy area remained largely Italian and Italian-American in origin. Of 50 individuals listed on Sheet 6B, only 13 did not have Italian surnames.24 In 1940, City Directories indicate that the address of the property had changed to 1715 Union Street. The 1940 Census schedules indicate that Ambrose (age 73) continued to live at 1715 Union Street. Vir- ginia Rodoni had died in 1938 at the age of 62.25 Living with Ambrose was his son Louis (age 35), a rail- road worker. The property was valued at $1,000, about average for the neighborhood. The 1940 Census schedules indicated that only four out of the total 15 heads of household had non-Italian surnames, in- dicating that the ethnic character of Little Italy continued to persist despite the influx of war workers from across the nation during the late 1930s.26 Building records indicate that there were very few, if any, changes made to the Rodoni property be- tween 1897 and 1940, except for the construction of two small additions at the rear of the house and possibly the garage, ca. 1930. Ca. 1944, Louis Rodoni married a woman with two daughters from a pre- vious marriage. To house his new family, Louis remodeled the interior of the house, installing a new kitchen, a new front door, and carpeting throughout the main floor level. The property was also hooked up to municipal water for the first time.27 In 1949, Ernest Rodoni, recently divorced from his wife, moved back to the family home. To house Ernest and his new wife Yolanda, a portion of the basement was re- modeled into living quarters.28 1951 Sanborn Map The 1951 Sanborn maps show few changes to the Rodoni property since the 1930 Sanborn maps had been published (Figure 21). The maps of the surrounding area do indicate that suburbanization had be- gun to overtake El Cerrito, including most of the Schmidtville/Little Italy area. For the most part, the re- maining ranches and nurseries were confined to foothills of the Berkeley Hills. In contrast, most of the level land near San Pablo Avenue had sprouted hundreds of single-family homes. Indeed, the 1951 Sanborn maps indicate that the majority of the small ranches shown on the 1930s maps had been re- placed with post-war tract houses. Of the older houses that remained, most sat on smaller lots, indicat- ing that their lots had been subdivided. In addition, most of the tank houses, windmills, stables and oth- er typical rural outbuildings had been demolished. In contrast to its neighbors, 1715 Elm Street re- mained a rural holdout, with its large lot, tank house, and agricultural activities all in place. 24 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Fifteenth Census of the United States: Contra Costa County Seventh Township – El Cerri- to City, Enumeration District 7-22, Sheet 6B. 25 Virginia Perata as cited in Michael Corbett, Historic and Architectural Assessment of the Rodoni Family Property, 1715 Elm Street, El Cerrito (Berkeley, CA: 2006), 7. 26 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Sixteenth Census of the United States: Contra Costa County El Cerrito, Enumeration District 232, Sheet 9A. 27 Contra Costa County Assessor’s Office, as cited in Michael Corbett, Historic and Architectural Assessment of the Rodoni Family Property, 1715 Elm Street, El Cerrito (Berkeley, CA: 2006), 8. 28 Michael Corbett, Historic and Architectural Assessment of the Rodoni Family Property, 1715 Elm Street, El Cerrito (Berkeley, CA: 2006), 8. ---PAGE BREAK--- Historic Resource Evaluation 1715 Elm Street, El Cerrito, CA December 2013 23 In 1956, Ambrose Rodoni conveyed 1715 Elm Street to his son, Louis Rodoni. That following year, in the summer of 1957, he died at the age of 90. According to his children, Ambrose lived most of his life in El Cerrito’s Little Italy without ever learning English. Instead, he communicated with his friends and family in his own Lombard dialect or with non-Italians in broken English.29 The fact that Rodoni never had to learn English attests both to the high concentration of Italians in this part of El Cerrito, as well as the strength and resilience of the Italian culture. Until he retired in 1969 at the age of 65, Louis Rodoni worked at the Santa Fe Railroad’s car shop in Richmond. Prior to his retirement, Louis does not seem to have made any significant changes to the Rodoni property, though the house’s windows were replaced with aluminum sliders probably sometime in the late 1960s. When the Contra Costa County Assessor visited the property in 1968, the tank house and windmill were both still standing. They were probably demolished not long after and the well house constructed from materials salvaged from the tank house. At some point in the 1970s or 1980s, Louis built the existing metal-frame and fiberglass shed. Between his retirement in 1969 and his death in 2002, Louis grew vegetables and fruit on the property – selling some from a roadside stand on Elm Street. He also grew grapes for winemaking.30 Louis Rodoni died in 2002 at the age of 98. The property was inherited by his two step-daughters, who conveyed it to Lincoln Trust Company of Fairfield, Califor- nia. Lincoln Trust planned to clear the site and construct condominiums on the property. In 2003, Eddie Biggs Development acquired the property to build condominiums. 29 Arline Rodini, as cited in Michael Corbett, Historic and Architectural Assessment of the Rodoni Family Property, 1715 Elm Street, El Cerrito (Berkeley, CA: 2006), 8. 30 Ibid. Figure 21. Section of Map 319, Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, Richmond, California, 1951 Source: San Francisco Public Library; annotated by Christopher VerPlanck ---PAGE BREAK--- Historic Resource Evaluation 1715 Elm Street, El Cerrito, CA December 2013 24 C. Summary of Alterations for 1715 Elm Street Building records are scarce for 1715 Elm Street. There is no original building permit for the house or any of the other structures on the site. The earliest permits on file for the property, which date to 1907 and 1912, probably record the construction of the two small shed-roofed additions at the rear of the house. Permit applications from the 1940s indicate that the Rodoni family completed an interior remodel, which included a new kitchen, carpeting, and other unspecified changes to the first floor level of the house. In 1949, the Rodonis converted the rear portion of the basement into living quarters for Ernest Rodoni. The most substantial alterations took place after 1968, when the original wood windows were replaced with aluminum sliders and the tank house and windmill demolished. During the 1970s a new well house was built above the well; it appears to have been built out of materials salvaged from the tank house. Louis Rodoni built a fiberglass-clad shed at an unknown date between the house and the garage. D. Chain of Title for 1715 Elm Street Document Reference Date Grantor Grantee Contra Costa County Assessor: Grant 1897 George Schmidt Ambrose Rodoni (Rodone) Lot 13, Block B, Schmidt Village Tract Contra Costa County Assessor: Inter- spousal Transfer September 1897 Ambrose Rodoni Virginia Rodoni Lot 13, Block B, Schmidt Village Tract Contra Costa County Assessor: Grant 1902 George Schmidt Ambrose and Virginia Rodoni Lot 14, Block B, Schmidt Village Tract Contra Costa County Assessor: Grant 1924 Unknown Ambrose and Virginia Rodoni Lot 12, Block B, Schmidt Village Tract Contra Costa County Assessor: Inter- spousal Transfer 1926 Virginia Rodoni Ambrose Rodoni Lots 12 and 14, Block B, Schmidt Village Tract Contra Costa County Assessor: Final Distribution 1938 Virginia Rodoni Ambrose Rodoni Lot 13, Block B, Schmidt Village Tract Contra Costa County Assessor: Gift 1956 Ambrose Rodoni Louis Rodoni Lots 12, 13, & 14, Block B, Schmidt Village Tract Contra Costa County Assessor: Final Distribution 2002 Louis Rodoni Heirs of Louis Rodoni Contra Costa County Assessor: Grant 2002 Heirs of Louis Rodoni Lincoln Trust Contra Costa County Assessor: Deed 2003 Lincoln Trust Eddie Biggs Development ---PAGE BREAK--- Historic Resource Evaluation 1715 Elm Street, El Cerrito, CA December 2013 25 VII. Evaluation of Historical Status VerPlanck Historic Preservation Consulting evaluated 1715 Elm Street to determine if it is individually eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register), which is the threshold for determining whether a property is a historical resource under Section 21084.1 of the Cali- fornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). As mentioned in the Introduction, Michael Corbett evaluated the property for eligibility in 2006. He concluded that the property was eligible for listing under Califor- nia Register Criterion 1 (Events) for its association with the history of early El Cerrito, as the third-oldest dwelling in the city, as well as a property associated with the now-vanished community of “Little Italy.” The period of significance is 1897 (the date of construction of the Rodoni house) until 1956, “when Little Italy began to be merged into the larger community.”31 Corbett did not find the property eligible under Criterion 2 (Persons). He did not evaluate it for significance under Criterion 3 (Design/Construction) or Criterion 4 (Information Potential). The following evaluation is our own independent analysis based on our own research and conclusions informed by the primary research in Corbett’s report. A. California Register of Historical Resources The California Register is an authoritative guide to significant architectural, archaeological, and historical resources in the State of California. Resources can be listed in the California Register through a number of methods. State Historical Landmarks and National Register-eligible properties (both listed and formal determinations of eligibility) are automatically listed. Properties can also be nominated to the California Register by local governments, private organizations, or citizens. These include properties identified in historical resource surveys with Status Codes of 1 to 5 and resources designated as local landmarks or listed by city or county ordinance. The eligibility criteria used by the California Register are closely based on those developed by the National Park Service for the National Register of Historic Places (National Register). In order to be eligible for listing in the California Register a property must be demonstrated to be significant under one or more of the following criteria: Criterion 1 (Event): Resources that are associated with events that have made a signifi- cant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural herit- age of California or the United States. Criterion 2 (Person): Resources that are associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history. Criterion 3 (Design/Construction): Resources that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represent the work of a master, or possess high artistic values. Criterion 4 (Information Potential): Resources or sites that have yielded or have the po- tential to yield information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, Cali- fornia or the nation. Michael Corbett’s evaluation was prepared at the request of Douglas Herring & Associates and not the City of El Cerrito, the property owner, or other local body. It has not been submitted to the Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State University, the local repository of the California Historical Re- sources Information System. As such the property has not been assigned a California Register Status 31 Michael Corbett, Historic and Architectural Assessment of the Rodoni Family Property, 1715 Elm Street, El Cerrito (Berkeley, CA: 2006), 1. ---PAGE BREAK--- Historic Resource Evaluation 1715 Elm Street, El Cerrito, CA December 2013 26 Code. In the following sections VerPlanck Historic Preservation Consulting examines the property under each of the four criteria and then assesses its integrity under the seven aspects utilized by the California Register. Criterion 1 (Events) As mentioned above, Michael Corbett concluded in his 2006 report that 1715 Elm Street appears eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 1. The following section is extracted from Corbett’s report: Under criterion 1, the Rodoni property “is associated with events that have made a sig- nificant contribution to the broad patterns of local…history.” The property is one of the few surviving elements of the pioneer period of El Cerrito before 1907. As such, it repre- sents an important era in the development of the city. The property represents the formative stage in the development of El Cerrito, when the land was surveyed but few people lived on it. As El Cerrito grew, the old landscape represented by this property almost completely disappeared. The Rodoni property, with its large parcel of three lots and its large garden/small farm character is an exemplary representative of this era. The property also represents the ethnic history of El Cerrito. The Rodoni family, which began developing the property in 1897, and occupied it until Louis Rodoni died in 2002, were Italian. The first generation, Ambrose and Virginia came from Italy in 1887 and about 1893, respectively. Their six children grew up in the house. Most moved out as they married; Louis, who married late, stayed in the house his whole life. Ambrose and Virginia only spoke Lombard, an Italian dialect from the region around Milan. The chil- dren spoke a form of their parent’s (sic) language and English, having attended local schools. As many attempted, the family recreated a piece of Italy in El Cerrito with its gardens and fruit trees and running water. For decades, the children and grandchildren returned weekly for meals largely made from the garden. The family made its own wine and canned fruit in the basement. In the place they created and in the lives they lived, the family belonged to the El Cerrito community of Little Italy, an area more or less between Hill and Potrero streets and from San Pablo Avenue eastward for a few blocks. Located within this area, the family had friends in the neighborhood, including Virginia’s family, the Boninni’s through their back fence at 1710 Liberty Street. They shopped on San Pablo and socialized in the neighborhood. As part of the Little Italy community, the Rodoni’s were typical Italians in their work. Like many, Ambrose and one of his sons worked in local quarries. Ambrose also de- scribed himself in census records and directories as, variously, a farm laborer, a carpen- ter, and a laborer. His jobs and many of the jobs of his sons were described by the cen- sus as “working on own account” – they were not employees but self-employed day la- borers. In this way, their working lives represented their status as immigrants at the bot- tom of the social and economic hierarchy. In the second generation, like other Italians, ---PAGE BREAK--- Historic Resource Evaluation 1715 Elm Street, El Cerrito, CA December 2013 27 Louis and his brothers sought and generally achieved employment positions in big com- panies with more security and better pay. A distinctive aspect of this property is the link that can be made between the people who lived there and the work they did as Italian immigrants. While written records are rarely if ever available to prove such things, it is highly probable that Ambrose himself, as a quarry worker, built the stone walls that line the creek. He and his sons previously also made most of the improvements to the property. Altogether, the property repre- sents the community of Little Italy in El Cerrito. The property is significant from 1897 when Ambrose and Virginia Rodoni bought the property and built the house. It ends in the 1950s when Little Italy declined as a distinc- tive cultural entity and merged into the larger community. For simplicity in a situation where any particular year would be arbitrary, we will say that the period of significance ends in 1956, fifty years ago.32 We concur with Corbett’s argument that 1715 Elm Street appears eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 1, as a very early residential property in the city and as a property closely asso- ciated with El Cerrito’s Little Italy. 1715 Elm Street is clearly a rare remnant of El Cerrito’s pioneer peri- od, which ends in 1906. As a community that got such a late start because of uncertainty over Rancho San Pablo land titles, El Cerrito has very few nineteenth-century buildings. According to the Contra Costa County Assessor, there are only four buildings in the city with construction dates preceding 1900, includ- ing: 6606 Schmidt Lane (1895), 7127 Blake Street (1896), 1715 Elm Street (1897), and 1332 Navellier Lane (1898). If these construction dates are accurate, 1715 Elm Street is the third-oldest building in El Cerrito. Furthermore, Assessor parcel data indicates that there are only seven more extant buildings in El Cerrito built between 1900 and 1906, meaning that there are only 11 known properties in El Cerrito dating from the city’s pioneer period. We also agree that 1715 Elm Street is significant for its association with El Cerrito’s Little Italy, a once- thriving immigrant enclave centered at the intersection of San Pablo and Potrero avenues. Prior to the Second World War, Little Italy consisted of around 100 houses east of San Pablo Avenue, between Hill Street to the north and Schmidt Lane to the south. Its commercial district was centered on San Pablo Avenue, with several other businesses located along Potrero Avenue. A tight-knit community of mostly Lombard-speaking immigrants, many of whom worked at low-skilled jobs in local quarries and other in- dustries, Little Italy had its own shops, churches, and social organizations. El Cerrito’s Italian immigrants did not need to learn English – though some did – and most continued to live according to their own cultural norms and traditions, including growing much of their own fruit and vegetables, as well as winemaking. Little Italy thrived from around 1920 until the early-to-mid-1950s, when accelerating sub- urban development essentially crowded out and absorbed the remnants of the formerly semi-rural community. Today there are few physical remnants of El Cerrito’s Little Italy. 32 Michael Corbett, Historic and Architectural Assessment of the Rodoni Family Property, 1715 Elm Street, El Cerrito (Berkeley, CA: 2006), 12-13. ---PAGE BREAK--- Historic Resource Evaluation 1715 Elm Street, El Cerrito, CA December 2013 28 Criterion 2 (Persons) We also concur with Michael Corbett’s findings that 1715 Elm Street does not appear eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 2. Corbett writes: “Although the Rodonis were long-time resi- dents of El Cerrito and its Little Italy community, none meet the guidelines for individually significant persons, as discussed in National Register Bulletin 15.” VerPlanck Historic Preservation Consulting researched local newspapers and census records to confirm that no members of the Rodoni family were important to local, California, or national history. Though active members of their community – and Louis Rodoni was well-known locally for his lush gardens and farm stand – the Rodonis did not appear to have played an important role in local, regional, or state cul- ture, politics, or any other area that would qualify the property under Criterion 2. Criterion 3 (Design/Construction) Michel Corbett did not evaluate 1715 Elm Street for eligibility for listing in the California Register under Criterion 3. VerPlanck Historic Preservation Consulting evaluated the property as a cultural landscape, as well as the Rodoni house for eligibility under this criterion. In the sections below we have separated our analysis into two categories: the property as a whole and the Rodoni House itself. Rodoni Property As a rare remnant of El Cerrito’s rural past, 1715 Elm Street is best understood as a vernacular cultural landscape. According to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes, a historic vernacular cultural landscape is: A landscape that evolved through use by the people whose activities or occupancy shaped it. Through social or cultural attitudes of an individual, a family, or a community, the landscape reflects the physical, biological, and cultural character of everyday lives. Function plays a significant role in vernacular landscapes. This can be a farm complex or a district of historic farmsteads along a river valley. Examples include rural historic dis- tricts and agricultural landscapes.33 Though many manmade sites may fall within the category of a vernacular cultural landscape, in order to be eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 3, it “must embody the distinctive charac- teristics” of a type or a period. Approaching the property from either side, the Rodoni property clearly stands out from its postwar suburban context. The unexpected break in the street wall announces that there is something different about 1715 Elm Street. Upon closer examination, the property bears the distinctive hallmarks of a small ranch or farm, with its once carefully tilled ground and irrigation system, its well house and other outbuildings, its untended fruit trees and grape arbors, and its stone-bound creek. The only elements missing from the property that would enhance its value as a historic cultural landscape are the tank house and windmill (both demolished after 1968). Consultation with the El Cerri- to Historical Society has failed to reveal any properties comparable to 1715 Elm Street in El Cerrito with the exception of 1332 Navellier Lane, another pioneer-era dwelling surrounded by agricultural land and open space at the base of the Berkeley Hills, less than a mile away from the subject property. 33 U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service, The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes (Washington, D.C.: 1996), 5. ---PAGE BREAK--- Historic Resource Evaluation 1715 Elm Street, El Cerrito, CA December 2013 29 Rodoni House In terms of its design, the Rodoni house is a hybrid of two different common vernacular housing types commonly built in the East Bay between 1890 and 1910 – the Queen Anne Cottage and the Neoclassic Rowhouse. Mostly it is a basic Queen Anne Cottage, with its angled bay window, shingled gables, and turned porch posts. The Oakland Planning Department’s 1978 publication Rehab Right describes this type, which is illustrated in Figure 22: The Queen Anne Cottage is a one-story building practically consumed by an oversized gable. A veritable billboard for textural effect, the ornate gable may be clothed in deco- rative shingles, framed with intricate bargeboard, pierced by flashed glass windows, stamped with a sunburst, and topped with a proud finial. A less elaborate gable might only have scalloped shingles, a perimeter of dentils, and a modest topknot.34 In regard to its façade organization and its ornament, the Rodoni house is a modest example of a Queen Anne Cottage, though it is not nearly as ornate as its typical urban counterparts. With its hipped roof and modest detailing, the Rodoni house also displays some characteristics of the Neoclassic Rowhouse style, another common vernacular housing type in the East Bay. It is described in Rehab Right as “a one-story house on a raised foundation, with a hipped roof and dormer window”35 (Figure 23). 1715 Elm Street does share some superficial characteristics with the prototypical Neoclassic Rowhouse, especially its pronounced hipped roof, chamfered bay window, and lack of extraneous or- nament. This type only began to become popular around 1895 and its form may have only tangentially influenced the builder of 1715 Elm Street. There are many examples of this later building type in El Cerri- to, though if they have any ornament at all it is either Classical or Craftsman in origin and not Queen Anne. 34 City of Oakland Planning Department, Rehab Right (Oakland: City of Oakland, 1978), 12. 35 Ibid., 19. Figure 22. “Queen Anne Cottage,” from Rehab Right Source: Oakland Planning Department Figure 23. “Neoclassic Rowhouse,” from Rehab Right Source: Oakland Planning Department ---PAGE BREAK--- Historic Resource Evaluation 1715 Elm Street, El Cerrito, CA December 2013 30 In summary, the Rodoni house does not appear to be a particularly distinctive example of a recognizable building type. To qualify for listing in the California Register, it should be a distinctive example, or other words, different from other comparable examples. In our opinion, the Rodoni house is a hybrid type that does not embody the distinctive characteristics of a particular type, period, or method of construction. Similarly, as a house that was built cheaply, practically, and probably by its owner, the Rodoni house does not appear eligible under Criterion 3 either as the “work of a master” or as a resource that “pos- sesses high artistic value.” Criterion 4 (Information Potential) Criterion 4 typically refers to archaeological resources. Though archaeological investigation is beyond the scope of this report, the California Historic Resources Information System does not report any ar- chaeological resources on the subject property or within its immediate vicinity. However, as a former agricultural property it is to be expected that historic-period features and materials may be present. In addition, prehistoric Ohlone settlements were often located near creeks in the San Francisco Bay Area. It is possible that Native American artifacts could be present on the site. B. Integrity To be eligible for listing in the California Register a property must not only be demonstrated to be signif- icant under the eligibility criteria, it must also retain integrity. Similar to the National Register, the Cali- fornia Register recognizes seven aspects, or qualities, that, in various combinations, define integrity. To retain integrity, a property must possess several, and usually most, of the aspects, which are described below: Location: The place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred. The Rodoni property remains in the same location that it was developed. Therefore it retains integrity of “location.” Design: The combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a proper- ty. Rodoni Property The Rodoni property retains its historic layout, with the house at the center, the creek separating the house from the southern third of the property, fruit trees along the south side of the house and along the western fence line, and most of the rest of the property set aside for row crops and viticulture. The relationship of the house to the creek, the garage, and to the areas formerly cultivated is reflective of the essential spatial characteristics associated with this property type – a small California ranch dating to the late nineteenth/early twentieth centuries. Several structures have been demolished and others built since the period of significance, including the tank house and windmill, which were both demolished after 1968. The well house appears to have been built from materials salvaged from the demolished tank house. It was built after the period of significance and is therefore a non-contributing feature. The fiberglass shed, which probably dates to the 1970s or 1980s, is also a non-contributing feature, but as Michael Corbett points out: “Although technically non-contributing….they (the well house and the shed) maintain the general character of the yard as a place with small, secondary buildings. ---PAGE BREAK--- Historic Resource Evaluation 1715 Elm Street, El Cerrito, CA December 2013 31 Rodoni House The Rodoni house has undergone several incompatible alterations, chief among them the replacement of the original wood windows with aluminum sliders ca. 1969. As part of this work the window openings appear to have been changed to match the standardized window sizes and, possibly, the historic Victori- an window trim removed. It is not certain that it had decorative window trim but even a simple rural Queen Anne dwelling such as this would likely have had decorative millwork surrounding the doors and windows, at least on the primary façade. The insertion of the off-the-shelf aluminum windows likely re- quired resizing the original window openings, and this may have resulted in the window trim being re- moved and replaced with the plain wood moldings that exist today. The changes to the interior and the replacement of the front door occurred within the period of significance and therefore do not reflect a diminishment of integrity. In summary, the Rodoni house and property have undergone alterations that diminish their integrity. Nonetheless, both still retain the majority of their original form, plan, space, structure, and the property is quite recognizable as a rural property type from its period of significance. Therefore, the property and house retain integrity of “design.” Setting: The physical environment of a historic property. The area surrounding the Rodoni property has undergone tremendous change between 1897, when the house was first built, and 1956, the end of the period of significance. However, the majority of those changes occurred during the period of significance, including the transformation of the surrounding blocks from small ranches and older homes into postwar suburban tracts. Since 1956, some remaining semi-rural holdouts were redeveloped with multi-family housing (particularly across the street), but though the surrounding properties are much denser than the subject property, most are similarly low- scale and do not radically impair the property’s setting. The property therefore retains integrity of “set- ting.” Materials: The physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property. Similar to the aspect of design, the primary impacts to materials including the demolition of the tank house and windmill after 1968 and the replacement of the Rodoni house’s wood windows with alumi- num around the same time. Otherwise, the historic materials of the property and the house are all still present. On balance the Rodoni property retains integrity of “materials.” Workmanship: The physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given pe- riod in history or prehistory. The Rodoni house and the other outbuildings are all built of simple “off-the-shelf” materials assembled by hand on-site. Examples of skilled workmanship include the exterior finishes of the house (including the decorative shingle patterns). The stone walls of the creek bed, though very simple are dry-laid with- out any mortar; they form another example of workmanship on the Rodoni property. The Rodoni prop- erty retains integrity of “workmanship.” ---PAGE BREAK--- Historic Resource Evaluation 1715 Elm Street, El Cerrito, CA December 2013 32 Feeling: The expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. Though the Rodoni property is missing its historic tank house and windmill, and has been untended for a decade, the property still clearly conveys its historic purpose and use. Family members and visitors from the period of significance would have no trouble recognizing the property – a standard test of the aspect of feeling. The Rodoni property retains integrity of “feeling.” Association: The direct line between an important historic event or person and a historic property. The Rodoni property is possibly the best remaining example of a residential property in El Cerrito that represents the history of the city’s once-thriving Little Italy neighborhood and as a rural, agricultural property from the Pioneer Period of El Cerrito. The property retains integrity of “association.” Summary Based on the analysis in this HRE, 1715 Elm Street appears eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 1 (Events) and Criterion 3 (Design/Construction). It does not appear eligible for listing under Criterion 2 (Persons). Evaluation under Criterion 4 (Information Potential) is beyond the scope of this report. VIII. Evaluation of Project-specific Impacts This section analyzes the historic status of the subject property and the impacts of the proposed project on the historic resource. The project description is derived from architectural and landscape plans pre- pared by LCA Architects titled “Elm Street Condominiums,” dated August 23, 2013. A. Project Description The proposed project would create a total of 15 residential units on the 18,465 square-foot property. The Rodoni house would be relocated to the southwest corner of the property and rehabilitated as a two-bedroom residential unit. The remaining 14 units, comprising three one-bedroom units and 11 two- bedroom units, would be located within a new three-story, concrete-podium, wood-frame building that would occupy the northern two-thirds of the site. The new structure would have a 15-space parking gar- age, bicycle parking, trash and recycling, one one-bedroom unit, and one two-bedroom unit on the first floor level; and one one-bedroom unit, and five two-bedroom units on both the second and third floor levels. Vehicular access to the garage would be provided by a new driveway off Elm Street. The new building would be set back 10’ from the adjoining property to the north, 15’ from the properties to the west, and 13’-7” from the relocated Rodoni house. In terms of its design, the new building would be de- signed in a contemporary version of the Craftsman style, with a false gable roof and extruded gable- roofed pavilions, cement fiberboard siding designed to imitate wood siding, double-hung vinyl windows with fiber cement trim designed to imitate wood windows and trim, and Craftsman-style wood trellises to shelter the garage entrance, the main pedestrian entrance, and the terrace. The Rodoni House would be rehabilitated in compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. The existing wood siding, shingles, and trim would be retained and preserved prior to repainting. A new wood door would replace the existing 1940s-era door. In addition, the non-historic aluminum sliders would be replaced with double-hung wood windows in keeping with what was used originally. The exist- ing porch and other decorative trim on the primary façade would be retained and preserved prior to ---PAGE BREAK--- Historic Resource Evaluation 1715 Elm Street, El Cerrito, CA December 2013 33 repainting. The non-historic porch on the rear elevation would be demolished and replaced with a new porch and stair. The existing asphalt shingle roofing would be retained. The interior of the dwelling, which retains little historic integrity, would be reconfigured and refinished. Landscaping, consisting of turf, trees, and shrubs, and hardscape features, would be used to enhance the unbuilt portions of the site. Street trees, including pear and southern magnolia, would line the east- ern property line in front of the new building. Screen trees, including bay laurel and fruiting olive, would line the north, west, and a portion of the south property lines. A turf lawn surrounded by a concrete walkway would occupy the southeast corner of the site, in front of the Rodoni House. The area sur- rounding the lawn would feature edible herb planting beds and fruit trees, including lemon, kumquat, persimmon, dwarf apple, apricot, and plum. A pair of flowering accent trees would flank the entrance to the restored Rodoni house. Various native and exotic shrubs, including manzanita, camellia, California lilac, coffeeberry, Mexican sage, and others would be used throughout the site. Hardscape features would include several outdoor patios, walkways, and the restored creek. A decomposed granite patio with raised herb beds would be built along the east side of the property, just north of the creek channel. A brick-paved walkway would be located between the patio/herb garden and the new building. A wood- plank bridge would connect the brick walkway with the turf lawn and concrete walkway in front of the Rodoni House. The stone-lined creek channel that runs through the site today would be retained and preserved as part of the project’s landscape. B. Status of Existing Property as a Historical Resource According to Section 15064.5 of CEQA, a “historical resource” is defined as belonging to at least one of the following three categories:  A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (Pub. Res. Code SS5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4850 et seq.);  A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or identified as significant in an historical re- source survey meeting the requirements of section 5024.1 of the Public Resources Code, shall be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demon- strates that it is not historically or culturally significant;  Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engi- neering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cul- tural annals of California may be considered to be an historical resource, provided the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of His- torical Resources (Pub. Res. Code SS5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4852). As mentioned previously, the 1715 Elm Street property does not have any formal historic status accord- ing to the California Historical Resource Information System. In addition, the City of El Cerrito does not maintain an official register of historical resources. This HRE finds the Rodoni property eligible for listing ---PAGE BREAK--- Historic Resource Evaluation 1715 Elm Street, El Cerrito, CA December 2013 34 in the California Register under Criterion 1 and 3. If the lead agency (the City of El Cerrito) concurs with the findings of this report, the property would be a historical resource under Section 15064.5 of CEQA. C. Determination of Significant Adverse Effect under CEQA According to CEQA, a “project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the signifi- cance of an historic resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.”36 Sub- stantial adverse change is defined as: “physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historic resource would be mate- rially impaired.”37 The significance of an historical resource is materially impaired when a project “de- molishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical re- source that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the California Register...as determined by a lead agency for purposes of CEQA.”38 D. Analysis of the Project for Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Illustrated Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (the Rehabilitation Standards and the Guidelines, respectively) provide guidance for reviewing work to historic properties.39 Developed by the National Park Service for reviewing certified rehabilitation tax credit projects, the Standards have been adopted by local government bodies across the country for reviewing proposed work on historic properties under local preservation ordinances. The Rehabilitation Standards are a useful analytic tool for understanding and describing the potential im- pacts of changes to historical resources. Conformance with the Rehabilitation Standards does not determine whether a project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource under CEQA. Rather, projects that comply with the Standards benefit from a regulatory presumption that they would have a less-than- significant adverse impact on a historical resource.40 Projects that do not comply with the Rehabilitation Standards may or may not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical re- source and would require further analysis to determine whether the historical resource would be “ma- terially impaired” by the project under CEQA Guidelines 15064.5(b). Rehabilitation is the only one of the four treatments outlined in the Standards (the others are Preserva- tion, Restoration, and Reconstruction) that allows for the construction of an addition or other alteration to accommodate a change in use or program.41 The first step in analyzing a project’s compliance with the Rehabilitation Standards is to identify the resource’s character-defining features, including charac- 36 CEQA Guidelines subsection 15064.5(b). 37 CEQA Guidelines subsection 15064.5(b)(1). 38 CEQA Guidelines subsection 15064.5(b)(2). 39 U.S. Department of Interior National Park Service Cultural Resources, Preservation Assistance Division, Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Illustrated Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings, 1992. The Standards, revised in 1992, were codified as 36 CFR Part 68.3 in the July 12, 1995 Federal Register (Vol. 60, No. 133). The revision replaces the 1978 and 1983 versions of 36 CFR 68 entitled The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Historic Preservation Projects. The 36 CFR 68.3 Standards are applied to all grant-in-aid development projects assisted through the National Historic Preservation Fund. Another set of Standards, 36 CFR 67.7, focuses on “certified historic struc- tures” as defined by the IRS Code of 1986. The Standards in 36 CFR 67.7 are used primarily when property owners are seeking certification for federal tax benefits. The two sets of Standards vary but the differences are primarily technical and non-substantive in nature. The Guidelines, however, are not codified in the Federal Register. 40 CEQA Guidelines subsection 15064.5(b) 41 Ibid., 63. ---PAGE BREAK--- Historic Resource Evaluation 1715 Elm Street, El Cerrito, CA December 2013 35 teristics such as design, materials, detailing, and spatial relationships. Once the property’s character- defining features have been identified, it is essential to devise a project approach that protects and maintains these important materials and features – meaning that the work involves the “least degree of intervention” and that important features and materials are safeguarded throughout the duration of construction.42 It is critical to ensure that new work does not result in the permanent removal, destruc- tion, or radical alteration of any significant character-defining features. It is important to note that the Rehabilitation Standards do not prevent modifications or limited altera- tion of historic structures or landscape features. The Rehabilitation Standards do allow for the modifica- tion of historic structures and landscapes where necessary, so long as the material integrity of the prop- erty is not permanently impaired. The following paragraphs evaluate the proposed project for compliance with each of the ten Rehabilita- tion Standards. For aspects of the project that may impact landscape features, we apply the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for the Treatment of Cul- tural Landscapes. Where the proposed project complies with the Standard in question, we summarize the beneficial or neutral impacts for the project as a whole. Where the proposed project does not com- ply, we have broken down the analysis into subsections corresponding to each component of the project (relocation and rehabilitation of the Rodoni House and new construction on the balance of the site) be- cause in many cases only one of the components of the proposed project may fail to comply with a giv- en Rehabilitation Standard. Rehabilitation Standard 1: A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that re- quires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces and spatial relationships. The proposed project would convert a single-family residential property with agricultural ancillary uses into a multiple family residential property. Although residential use is not by itself incompatible with the subject property, the introduction of a new multi-family residential building would result in the destruc- tion of the former vernacular cultural landscape, resulting in substantial changes to its distinctive mate- rials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships. In summary, the proposed project does not comply with Rehabilitation Standard 1. Rehabilitation Standard 2: The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The re- moval of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships that characterize the property will be avoided. The proposed project, which would relocate the Rodoni house and replace the existing vernacular cul- tural landscape on the northern two-thirds of the property with a new residential building, would un- questionably alter the existing spatial relationships of the Rodoni property. However, the two most im- portant historic features of the property, the Rodoni house and the stone-lined creek channel, would be retained and restored, significantly reducing the project’s effects on historic materials or features. 42 Ibid. ---PAGE BREAK--- Historic Resource Evaluation 1715 Elm Street, El Cerrito, CA December 2013 36 Rodoni House The relocated Rodoni House would be rehabilitated as part of the proposed project. Its exterior would be restored to its appearance during the period of significance. No distinctive materials or features would be removed from the building. Rodoni Property The proposed project would relocate the Rodoni house from its original location at the center of the property to its southwest corner. The Rehabilitation Guidelines discourage “Removing or relocating his- toric buildings on a site or in a complex of related historic structures – such as a mill complex or a farm – thus diminishing the historic character of the site or complex.”43 On the other hand, the California Regis- ter Guidelines do not discourage relocating a California Register-eligible property if it will prevent its demolition.44 Though relocating the house would alter the property’s spatial relationships, the Rodoni house would remain on the property, maintaining an important historical nexus. Furthermore, its al- ready compromised setting would be enhanced by compatible landscaping consisting of flowering fruit trees and other species characteristic of the property during the period of significance. The Rodoni house would be the only structure on the southern third of the property and it would be separated from the new building by the restored historic creek channel, giving it a natural buffer. Though it would be set back farther from the street than it is now, this configuration is not uncommon for properties of this type. In rural and once-rural parts of Contra Costa County like El Cerrito, older farm houses like the Rodoni house were sometimes placed at the rear of the property in order to free up space for a garden or barn at the front of the property. In summary, the proposed project substantially complies with Rehabilitation Standard 2. Rehabilitation Standard 3: Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken. The proposed project would not add any elements that would create a false sense of historical devel- opment. Nor would it add any conjectural features or elements from other historic properties. The pro- ject drawings indicate that the non-historic aluminum slider windows and wood door would be replaced with compatible counterparts. Though what is depicted on the drawings appear compatible, best prac- tice should entail both a) examining physical evidence inside the walls of the Rodoni house to determine the original extent of the windows, and b) searching local archives for a historic photograph to deter- mine exactly what type of windows and doors were originally used. If physical evidence is inconclusive or historic photographs are not available, it would be acceptable to examine comparable, intact proper- ties built during the same period as the Rodoni house to inform the appearance of the replacement windows. Provided that these steps are taken, the proposed project would comply with Rehabilitation Standard 3. 43 U.S. Department of Interior National Park Service Cultural Resources, Preservation Assistance Division, Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Illustrated Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (Washington, D.C.: 1995), 102. 44 California Department of Parks and Recreation, Office of Historic Preservation, California Office of Historic Preservation Technical Assistance Series “California Register and National Register: A Comparison (Sacramento: 2001), 3. ---PAGE BREAK--- Historic Resource Evaluation 1715 Elm Street, El Cerrito, CA December 2013 37 Rehabilitation Standard 4: Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. None of the changes that occurred after the end of the period of significance – the well house, shed, and addition of aluminum windows to the Rodoni house – have gained significance in their own right. Their demolition would not adversely affect the property. In summary, the proposed project complies with Rehabilitation Standard 4. Rehabilitation Standard 5: Distinctive materials, features, finishes and construction techniques or ex- amples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. According to the project drawings, the exterior of the Rodoni house would be restored to its historic ap- pearance. All historic siding, shingles, and porch and cornice trim – mostly concentrated on the primary façade – would be retained and preserved. The interior of the dwelling would be remodeled but it has already been significantly altered and no longer retains integrity. In summary, the proposed project complies with Rehabilitation Standard 5. Rehabilitation Standard 6: Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. The project drawings indicate that the existing non-historic aluminum windows and wood door would be replaced with counterparts more in keeping with the building’s historic character. As mentioned pre- viously, the windows and door shown in the drawings appear compatible with the historic structure. In order to ensure that the replacements are historically accurate, additional physical investigation and research should be completed. Physical investigation should include removing the interior finishes from around the windows and examining the building’s framing. Ideally remnants of the original window framing survive inside the walls. If enough physical evidence survives it would be possible to either pur- chase or have custom wood or wood-clad, double-hung windows made that fit these dimensions. Even better would be to obtain historic photographs of the house to determine the exact appearance of the original door and windows, as well as the missing door and window trim. The El Cerrito Historical Society does not have any historic photographs of the Rodoni house, so the best chance to obtain one would be to contact the family. Provided these steps are taken, the proposed project would comply with Rehabilitation Standard 6. Rehabilitation Standard 7: Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. In preparation for painting the exterior, chemical and/or physical treatments would likely be used in the rehabilitation of the Rodoni house. When removing loose paint harsh treatments like sandblasting should not be used. Instead, power washing and hand sanding and scraping are appropriate physical treatments. When cleaning the exterior, gentle agents like trisodium phosphate (TSP) should be used. ---PAGE BREAK--- Historic Resource Evaluation 1715 Elm Street, El Cerrito, CA December 2013 38 Provided that these recommendations are followed, the proposed project would comply with Rehabili- tation Standard 7. Rehabilitation Standard 8: Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such re- sources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. The proposed project would result in the excavation of much of the Rodoni property to construct foun- dations for the new condominium building and the relocated Rodoni house. Though there is no record of any archaeological resources in this part of El Cerrito at the Northwest Information Center, it is possi- ble, that with the presence of the stream on the property, there could be prehistoric archaeological de- posits. In addition, as a working ranch for over a century, there are likely historic-period resources on the property. In compliance with City regulations, the project sponsor would follow standard monitoring and data recovery procedures. In summary, the proposed project complies with Rehabilitation Standard 8. Rehabilitation Standard 9: New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not de- stroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. As discussed above, the proposed project would construct a 14-unit, multi-family building on the north- ernmost two-thirds of the Rodoni property. This structure and its attendant landscaping would result in the removal of the remaining historic vernacular cultural landscape that presently exists on the site. Rodoni House The Rodoni house would be moved from where it is now to the southwestern corner of the property and rehabilitated. The exterior of the house would be restored to its historic appearance, and aside from the construction of a new rear stair, which would not be visible from Elm Street, the project would not result in any other additions being added to the house. Though the spatial relationships that character- ize the property would change, placing the house by itself on the southern bank of the stone-lined creek channel, which would also be retained and restored as part of the project, would retain some sense of the property’s historic agricultural use. Rodoni Property Though the ground has not been cultivated for over a decade now, the Rodoni property remains a rare example of a vernacular agricultural landscape from the Pioneer Era in El Cerrito’s history. The only oth- er comparable property in El Cerrito is the Navellier property, at 1332 Navellier Lane. The existing ver- nacular cultural landscape, which consists of fruit trees, grape arbors, and several deteriorated outbuild- ings, would all be removed. The historic stone creek bed would be retained and restored as part of the landscaping. Furthermore, the new landscaping planned for the southern third of the property, where the Rodoni house would be located, would consist of fruit trees now found elsewhere on the property, including pear, apple, and persimmon. Herb gardens near Elm Street would provide additional clues to the property’s agricultural past. Finally, the new construction would be set back at least 13’-7” from the Rodoni house, and separated from it by the creek bed. It would not wrap around the rear of the historic ---PAGE BREAK--- Historic Resource Evaluation 1715 Elm Street, El Cerrito, CA December 2013 39 house, allowing the Rodoni house to continue to read as a freestanding structure. The design of the new building would recall but not mimic the architecture of the Rodoni house, ensuring that the Rodoni house continues to “read” as the only historic resource on the property. Though the siting and landscap- ing of the proposed project would go a long way toward reducing the effects of the project, the con- struction of a much larger residential building on the site of the former cultural landscape would destroy existing spatial relationships and remove existing materials and features. In summary, the proposed project does not comply with Rehabilitation Standard 9. Rehabilitation Standard 10: New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. As mentioned above, the construction of the proposed residential building would result in the removal of the majority of the Rodoni property’s vernacular cultural landscape. Nonetheless, if the proposed building was removed in the future, and the land re-cultivated, it would not be difficult to imagine the restored Rodoni house as part of a historic vernacular cultural landscape. In summary, the proposed project complies with Rehabilitation Standard 10. E. Analysis of Project-specific Impacts under CEQA The proposed project complies with all ten Rehabilitation Standards except for Standards 1 and 9. None- theless, as a project that fails to comply with all ten Standards, it cannot benefit from a regulatory pre- sumption that it would not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Based on the analysis in this report, without formal mitigation, the project would likely have a significant impact on the histor- ical resource, which is not just the Rodoni house but the entire Rodoni property.45 IX. Suggested Mitigation According to Section 15126.4(b)(1) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA Guidelines): “Where mainte- nance, repair, stabilization, rehabilitation, restoration, preservation, conservation or reconstruction of the historical resource will be conducted in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restor- ing, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings, the project’s impact on the historical resource will generally be considered mitigated below a level of significance and thus is not significant.” Because the proposed project would likely have a substantial adverse effect on a potential historic resource, mitigation measures may be required. Historic resource mitigations are typically developed on a case-by-case basis, providing the opportunity to tailor them to the characteristics and the significance of the resource and the impacts to it. The more commonly adopted mitigation measures consist of 1) documentation of the affected resource – typically to Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) standards; 2) preparation of a salvage plan for significant features and materials; or 3) making a commemorative plaque or interpretive display. While in some instances these mitigation measures, taken individually, are judged to reduce the adverse effects to a less-than-significant level, they often do not alter the loss to community character and collective history. 45 CEQA Guidelines subsection 15064.5(b). ---PAGE BREAK--- Historic Resource Evaluation 1715 Elm Street, El Cerrito, CA December 2013 40 Section 15126.4(b)(2) of the Public Resources Code is clear in this regard: “In some circumstances, doc- umentation of an historical resource, by way of historic narrative, photographs or architectural draw- ings, as mitigation for the effects of demolition of the resource will not mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur.” In the section below we outline several possible mitigation measures that may, in combination, mitigate the proposed project’s impacts to a less-than-significant level. A. HABS-level Documentation As mentioned above, documentation of a historical resource, by way of historical narrative, large-format black-and-white photography, and/or architectural drawings according to HABS archival standards as mitigation for the effects of the demolition or alteration of a resource will typically not mitigate the ef- fects to a less-than-significant impact on its own. Part of the problem with HABS-level documentation as mitigation under CEQA is that the resource is lost to the community, and the recordation documents are not readily accessible to the public. However, HABS Level I or Level II documentation, in concert with other mitigation measures, may be sufficient to reduce the impacts of the project to a less-than- significant level, as determined by the City of El Cerrito. The following potential mitigation measures could be applied individually or together with HABS-level documentation to create an ideal mitigation package. The definitions of HABS-level documentation can be found on the National Park website: B. Façade Restoration After 1968 the Rodoni house was remodeled. As part of this project the original wood windows were removed and historic wood trim removed from around the doors and windows. We suggest making a rigorous and well-documented façade restoration be made a possible mitigation measure and/or condi- tion of approval. As mentioned above under the analysis of the project for compliance with the Secre- tary of the Interior’s Standards, the façade would need to be documented by either physical and/or documentary evidence to establish what the façade looked like during the period of significance. As de- scribed above, removing interior finishes from around the windows would likely provide information on the original size of the windows. The original windows were almost certainly wood and double-hung with a light pattern of one-over-one, or possibly two-over-one. For determining the type of wood win- dows (and trim) originally used, a historic photograph would be most helpful. Though the door in the main entrance was changed in the 1940s, during the period of significance, it is not compatible with the Queen Anne façade. Again, a historic photograph would be helpful in revealing what type of door the house originally had. It may be possible to procure a similar door at a salvage company such as Urban Ore or Omega Salvage in Berkeley, or a compatible door could be custom-fabricated. ---PAGE BREAK--- Historic Resource Evaluation 1715 Elm Street, El Cerrito, CA December 2013 41 X. Conclusion Originally developed in 1897 by Ambrose and Virginia Rodoni as a single-family residence and small weekend ranch, the property now known as 1715 Elm Street was expanded with additional lot purchas- es until reaching its present size in 1924. As the property expanded the Rodoni family was able to ex- pand the range of activities possible, which eventually included the cultivation of fruit trees, wine grapes, and row crops. For its first half-century of existence, the Rodoni property used well water, likely augmented by the water from the unnamed creek that cuts across the property. The property remained in the Rodoni family from 1897 until 2002 and it was evidently cultivated until the end. Today it remains one of a very small number of historic agricultural properties left in El Cerrito, a community once known for its dairies, nurseries, and ranches. The Rodoni house is a good example of a vernacular Victorian-era dwelling built for an immigrant family of modest means. Designed in a vernacular version of the Queen Anne style, the dwelling also incorporates some characteristics of the contemporary Neoclassic Row- house style. Though the dwelling has been altered, it is still recognizable, retaining its historic massing, scale, cladding, fenestration pattern, and most of its original spare ornamentation. According to the analysis in this report, 1715 Elm Street appears eligible for listing in the California Register under Criteri- on 1 (Events) as one of the oldest houses in El Cerrito and for its association with the city’s Italian com- munity. It also appears eligible under Criterion 3 (Design/Construction) as a vernacular cultural land- scape embodying the increasingly rare characteristics of a rural ranch property in El Cerrito. Based on this evaluation, 1715 Elm Street appears to be a historical resource under CEQA. As such, the proposed project – which would entail moving the house to the southwest corner of the property and redevelop- ing the balance with a three-story, 14-unit condominium building – would likely have a significant ad- verse effect on the environment. This report concludes with potential mitigation measures that would likely reduce the project impacts to a less-than-significant effect. ---PAGE BREAK--- Historic Resource Evaluation 1715 Elm Street, El Cerrito, CA December 2013 42 XI. Bibliography A. Published California Department of Parks and Recreation, Office of Historic Preservation. California Office of Historic Preservation Technical Assistance Series “California Register and National Reg- ister: A Comparison. Sacramento: 2001. Corbett, Michael. Historic and Architectural Assessment of the Rodoni Family Property, 1715 Elm Street, El Cerrito. Berkeley, CA: 2006. Oakland Planning Department. Rehab Right. Oakland: City of Oakland, 1978. Panas, Tom. Draft Historic Context Statement: City of El Cerrito. El Cerrito: unpublished manu- script located at the El Cerrito Historical Society, 2011. R.L. Polk & Company. Richmond and Contra Costa County Directories. Oakland: 1901-1960. Sanborn Fire Insurance Company: Sanborn Maps for El Cerrito and Richmond: 1926, 1930, and 1951. Scott, Mel. The San Francisco Bay Area: A Metropolis in Perspective. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1959. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. National Register Bulletin 15: How to Ap- ply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. Washington, D.C.: rev. ed. 1998. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. National Register Bulletin 16: “How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. Washington, D.C.: rev. ed. 1998. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation & Illustrated Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. Washington, D.C.: 1992. B. Public Records California Death Index: 1940-1997. California Marriage Index, 1960-1985. CEQA Guidelines subsection 15064.5(b). Contra Costa County Assessor: Sales Ledgers and deeds for 1715 Elm Street. El Cerrito Planning Division: Building and alteration permits on file for 1715 Elm Street. United States Census Bureau: Census Schedules for 1880-1930. ---PAGE BREAK--- Historic Resource Evaluation 1715 Elm Street, El Cerrito, CA December 2013 43 C. Periodicals California Architect and Building News. Oakland Tribune. San Francisco Call. San Francisco Chronicle. San Francisco Examiner. ---PAGE BREAK--- 155 Grand Avenue, Suite 900, Oakland, CA 94612 [PHONE REDACTED] [PHONE REDACTED] P F Kittelson Associates, Inc. & T R A N S P O R T A T I O N E N G I N E E R I N G P L A N N I N G / December 3, 2013 Project 17305 Patrick Hindmarsh PMC 2729 Prospect Park Drive, Suite 22 Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 RE: El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street TIA Review Dear Patrick: KAI completed the review of the 1715 Elm Street Traffic Impact Analysis dated November 2009. While a number of changes have taken place since the preparation of the 2009 study that may affect the analysis findings, we have determined that the key findings from the 2009 study would be applicable to the current project with the exception of off‐street parking. These changes and the basis of our determination are described in this letter report. A discussion on off‐street parking requirement is also provided. Project Description The current project consists of 15 residential units including 3 one‐bedroom and 11 two‐bedroom condominium units and 1 two‐bedroom single‐family detached house with 15 on‐site parking spaces. The 2009 study assumed 14 residential units including 13 townhouses and 1 single‐family house with 21 on‐site parking spaces. Vehicular access is provided through a single driveway off Elm Street under both the previous and current projects. The difference in trip generation between the two projects is discussed in the following section. Trip Generation The trip generation calculation in the 2009 study was based on industry‐accepted data published in the Trip Generation Manual by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Specifically, the weighted average rates from the 7th edition (2003) were used. An updated trip generation calculation based on the current project description and the 9th edition (2012) was developed to provide a comparison of the projected number of trips that would be generated by the current and previous projects. Although the updated trip generation also used the same average rate for the single‐family house, the trip generation for the condominium units was calculated based on the published regression equations in keeping with guidance of the Trip Generation Handbook (ITE 2004). The trip generation as reported in the 2009 study, the updated trip generation based on the current project description, and the resulting difference in the number of ---PAGE BREAK--- El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street TIA Review Project 17305 December 3, 2013 Page: 2 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California daily and peak hour trips are presented in Table 1. The current project would generate 40 additional daily trips, and five additional trips in each of the AM and PM peak hours. Table 1 Trip Generation Comparison Trip Generation Amount Source Trips Generated Land Use Category Weekday AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total 2013 Project (ITE 9th edition) Condo/Townhouse 14 du ITE (230) 116 2 9 11 8 4 12 Single Family Detached 1 du ITE (210) 10 0 1 1 1 0 1 Total Project Trips 126 2 10 12 9 4 13 2009 Project (from 2009 study) Condo/Townhouse 13 du ITE (230) 76 1 5 6 5 2 7 Single Family Detached 1 du ITE (210) 10 0 1 1 1 0 1 Total Project Trips 86 1 6 7 6 2 8 Difference 40 1 4 5 3 2 5 Analysis Methodology Level of service (LOS) analysis by jurisdictions in Contra Costa County has traditionally been performed based on CCTALOS method as required by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA). Following the adoption of the latest Technical Procedures dated January 16, 2013, CCTA is requiring the use of 2010 update of the Highway Capacity Manual (2010 HCM) operational method for LOS analysis unless the calculation is being compared to standard that was established using the methodology previously adopted by CCTA, in which case CCTALOS method may be used. The level of service analysis in the 2009 study was performed based on methodology outlined in the 2000 update of Highway Capacity Manual (2000 HCM). While both the 2000 HCM and the 2010 HCM are delay‐based methodologies, as opposed to capacity‐based methodology of CCTALOS, and the LOS thresholds are the same, differences in the two HCM methodologies may potentially result in different analysis findings. Nonetheless, CCTA recognizes the challenges in implementing the relatively new 2010 HCM methodology and allows flexibility in the use of both CCTALOS and 2000 HCM methodologies during this transition period. In fact, CCTA is currently using 2000 HCM in its own studies. Therefore, the 2000 HCM methodology used in the 2009 study is acceptable. Economic Conditions It has been shown that economic conditions have a parallel effect on traffic volumes on the roadway network. Traffic volumes tend to be higher during economic upturn and lower during economic downturn. However, this effect tends to be more pronounced along freeways and arterial roads which serve regional traffic and are thus more susceptive to conditions driven by commerce. Traffic volumes for the 2009 study were collected in October 2009 during the recent financial crisis. ---PAGE BREAK--- El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street TIA Review Project 17305 December 3, 2013 Page: 3 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California However, because the counts were collected on local residential streets, which are less sensitive to regional growth or decline, and the economy in October 2009 was already on the uptick towards recovery, the effects of the economic condition on traffic volumes are expected to be relatively minor. Therefore, the 2009 study performed using October 2009 counts are applicable to the current project. Level of Service Results The 2009 study has found that the analysis intersections would operate at LOS C or better under both Existing plus Project scenario and Cumulative plus Project scenario during the AM and PM peak hours. The addition of five vehicle trips during each peak hour would not likely reduce the level of service to below the City’s standard of LOS D. Therefore, the current project would not result in a significance impact. Off‐Street Parking The City’s Municipal Code (19.24.040) requires 2 spaces per single‐family and multi‐family dwelling units for each unit of two or more bedrooms for development located in the RM zoning district. It also allows a 25 percent parking reduction for uses, except single‐family dwellings, second units, and two‐family dwellings, located within one‐quarter mile of a Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) station. As the project site is within one‐quarter mile of El Cerrito del Norte station, the project is required to provide 19 off‐street parking spaces. This was calculated based on 1.5 space per unit for the 11 two‐ bedroom condo units plus 2 spaces for the single‐family house. The three 1‐bedroom units are not required to provide any off‐street parking. By providing only 15 parking spaces, the project would have a deficit of 4 spaces. Conclusion Our review has found that the key LOS findings in the 2009 study are applicable to the current project despite changes in project land use, trip generation reference updates, analysis methodologies and economic conditions. Because the vehicular access point remains the same on Elm Street, access and circulation patterns would be similar. The only potential issue is related to off‐street parking in that the current project proposes 15 off‐street parking spaces while a total of 19 spaces would be required per city code. A Use Permit would be required to further reduce the required on‐site parking. Sincerely, KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. Alice Chen Debbie Yueh Principal Planner Associate ---PAGE BREAK--- CITY OF EL CERRITO 1715 ELM STREET TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Prepared for: CITY OF EL CERRITO Prepared by: 500 12TH STREET, SUITE 240 OAKLAND, CA 94607 NOVEMBER 2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- 1715 ELM STREET City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street November 2009 Traffic Impact Analysis i TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 3 Project Location 3 Project Description 3 Methodology and Assumptions 3 Study Scenarios 16 Existing Conditions 16 Existing Plus Project Conditions 21 Cumulative Conditions 22 Cumulative Plus Project Conditions 31 Impacts and Mitigation Measures 32 References 35 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Level of Service (LOS) Descriptions 4 Table 2 Level of Service (LOS) Thresholds for Signalized Intersections 15 Table 3 Level of Service (LOS) Thresholds for Unsignalized Intersections 15 Table 4 Existing On-Street Parking 17 Table 5 Existing Intersection Level of Service (LOS) Summary 21 Table 6 Project Trip Generation 21 Table 7 Existing Plus Project Intersection Level of Service (LOS) Summary 22 Table 8 Cumulative Proposed and Approved Projects Trip Generation 31 Table 9 Cumulative Intersection Level of Service (LOS) Summary 31 Table 10 Cumulative Plus Project Intersection Level of Service (LOS) Summary 32 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Project Regional Location 5 Figure 2 Vicinity of Project Site 7 Figure 3 Aerial View of Project Site 9 Figure 4 Project Site Plan 11 Figure 5 Study Intersections 13 ---PAGE BREAK--- 1715 ELM STREET 1715 Elm Street City of El Cerrito Traffic Impact Analysis November 2009 ii Figure 6 Existing Conditions 19 Figure 7 Existing Weekday AM / PM Traffic Volumes 23 Figure 8 Project Weekday AM / PM Traffic Volumes 25 Figure 9 Existing Plus Project Weekday AM / PM Traffic Volumes 27 Figure 10 Cumulative Weekday AM / PM Traffic Volumes 29 Figure 11 Cumulative Plus Project Weekday AM / PM Traffic Volumes 33 APPENDICES Appendix A – Traffic Counts Appendix B – LOS Calculation Worksheets ---PAGE BREAK--- 1715 ELM STREET City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street November 2009 Traffic Impact Analysis 3 INTRODUCTION This report summarizes the traffic analysis performed for the proposed 1715 Elm Street townhouse (project). This report includes information on analysis methodology, existing conditions at the project site, and potential project impacts on traffic volumes, intersection operation, site circulation, parking demands, and non-motorized forms of transportation. This report also uses the January 2006 Mitigation Negative Declaration for the previous proposal for this project site as a reference (DHA, 2006). PROJECT LOCATION The project site is located at 1715 Elm Street in the City of El Cerrito in Contra Costa County in the northern San Francisco Bay Area (Figure The project site is located on the west side of Elm Street between Hill Street and Blake Street (Figure The site is primarily surrounded by residential neighborhoods and by the Keystone Montessori abutting the south side of the project site (Figure Windrush School is across Elm Street to the north. The El Cerrito del Norte BART Station is west of the project site. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project would involve an on-site relocation and restoration of the original house, construction of 13 townhouses, and provision of a small pocket park along the Elm Street frontage (Figure Project parking would be provided in ground floor garages at a ratio of 1.5 spaces per unit, or 21 spaces. The project would include a car share program on-site and a location for community bike storage. Project construction activities would commence in 2010 and conclude in 2011. METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS The scope and methodologies used for this traffic study are based on the 2005 traffic analysis performed by Crane Transportation Group as documented in the January 2006 Mitigation Negative Declaration for the previous proposal for this project site. It is important to note that the Crane Transportation Group traffic study was not available for review. In addition, this study incorporates an increase in students and teachers at the Windrush School based on the 2007 approval by the City of El Cerrito Planning Commission of an amendment to the Windrush School’s use permit to increase their student body and for their 20-year master plan. This study also considers the installation of a stop sign at the Elm Street / Richmond Street / Blake Street intersection (City of El Cerrito, 2009). PROJECT STUDY AREA The project study area, as defined through consultation with City staff, encompasses three intersections (Figure • Elm Street / Hill Street / Key Boulevard (signalized) • Elm Street / Richmond Street / Blake Street (unsignalized, all-way stop controlled) • Richmond Avenue / Potrero Avenue (signalized) ---PAGE BREAK--- 1715 ELM STREET 1715 Elm Street City of El Cerrito Traffic Impact Analysis November 2009 4 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) METHODOLOGY Level of service (LOS) is the term used to denote the different operating conditions that occur on a given roadway segment or intersection under various traffic volume loads. It is a qualitative measure used to describe a quantitative analysis taking into account factors such as roadway geometries, signal phasing, travel speed, travel delay, freedom to maneuver, and safety. LOS provides an index to the operational qualities of an intersection. LOS designations range from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions and LOS F representing the worst operating conditions. A complete description of the meaning of level of service can be found the in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) and a brief description is shown in Table 1. TABLE 1 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) DESCRIPTIONS LOS Description A No approach phase is fully utilized by traffic, and no vehicle waits longer than one red indication. Typically, the approach appears quite open, turns are made easily, and nearly all drivers find freedom of operation. B This service level represents stable operation, where an occasional approach phase is fully utilized and a substantial number are nearing full use. Many drivers begin to feel restricted within platoons of vehicles. C This level still represents stable operating conditions. Occasionally drivers may have to wait through more than one red signal indication, and backups may develop behind turning vehicles. Most drivers feel somewhat restricted, but not objectionably so. D This level encompasses a zone of increasing restriction approaching instability at the intersection. Delays to approaching vehicles may be substantial during short peaks within the peak period; however, enough cycles with lower demand occur to permit periodic clearance of developing queues, thus preventing excessive backups. E Capacity occurs at the upper end of this service level. It represents the most vehicles that any particular intersection approach can accommodate. Full utilization of every signal cycle is seldom attained no matter how great the demand. F This level describes forced flow operations at low speeds, where volumes exceed capacity. These conditions usually result from queues of vehicles backing up from a restriction Speeds are reduced substantially, and stoppages may occur for short or long periods of time due to the congestion. In the extreme case, both speed and volume can drop to zero. Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 2000 LOS designation is reported differently for signalized intersections and unsignalized intersections, as described below. SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS The two signalized intersections were analyzed for the weekday AM and PM peak hour conditions. Average vehicle delay was determined using the methodology found in Chapter 16 of the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), using the Traffix (version 8.0) computer software. The delay values (represented in seconds) were qualified with a corresponding intersection level of service. Table 2 summarizes the delay thresholds for signalized intersections. ---PAGE BREAK--- S a n S a n F r a n c i s c o F r a n c i s c o C o u n t y C o u n t y S o l a n o S o l a n o C o u n t y C o u n t y A l a m e d a A l a m e d a C o u n t y C o u n t y M a r i n M a r i n C o u n t y C o u n t y C o n t r a C o s t a C o n t r a C o s t a C o u n t y C o u n t y S o n o m a S o n o m a C o u n t y C o u n t y N a p a N a p a C o u n t y C o u n t y S a n M a t e o S a n M a t e o C o u n t y C o u n t y S a n t a C l a r a S a n t a C l a r a C o u n t y C o u n t y Oakland San Jose Concord Antioch San Rafael--Novato Santa Rosa Vallejo Fairfield Napa Livermore Petaluma Sonoma Sonoma Half Moon Bay Half Moon Bay Dixon Dixon Fairfield Southwest Fairfield Southwest Yountville Yountville Sacramento River T:\_GIS\CONTRA_COSTA_COUNTY\MXDS\EL_CERRITTO\ELM_STREET\FIG 1 REGIONAL LOCATION.MXD - 11/12/2009 @ 11:00:45 AM 4 0 4 MILES Project Location Figure 1 Project Regional Location Source: ESRI Streetmap USA P a c i f i c O c e a n San Pablo Bay San Francisco Bay ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Project Site Hillside Nature Area Albany Hill Park S a n F r a n c i s c o B a y Memorial Park Huber Park Arlington Park Cerrito Vista Park Sunset View Cemetery Wildcat Canyon Regional Park edy dy hool hool Portola Middle Portola Middle School School E Bay Sierra E Bay Sierra Elementary School Elementary School Fairmont Fairmont Elementary School Elementary School Harding Elementary Harding Elementary School School Saint Jerome Saint Jerome Elementary School Elementary School Madera Madera Elementary School Elementary School Military Reservation Kensington Kensington Elementary Elementary School School Fairmont Fairmont Park Park Pacific East Pacific East El Cerrito Plaza El Cerrito Plaza San Pablo Ave Elm St Elm St Mira Vista Mira Vista Elementary School Elementary School Prospect Elementary Prospect Elementary School School Windrush Elementary Windrush Elementary School School Tehiyah Day Tehiyah Day Elementary School Elementary School Mira Vista Mira Vista Country Club and Country Club and Golf Course Golf Course Hillside Nature Area ker T Anderson Jr Park Canyon Trail Park Castro Park Tiller Park Tassajara Park Plaza Park Central Park Crescent Park Mira Vista Park Poinsett Park 80 80 580 123 123 A r l in gton B l v d Richmond St Carlson Blvd Potrero Ave As h b ury A v e B arr e t t A v e Key Navellier St Manila Ave A rlington A ve Fairmount Ave San Mateo St Curtis St Moeser Ln C o lu s a A ve Cutting Blvd Tehama Ave Col us a A v e Moeser Ln Potrero Ave Carlson Blvd Ar l i ngt o n Av e El Cerrito Richmond Albany Kensington Berkeley East Richmond Heights Source: ESRI Streetmap USA, PMC T:\_GIS\CONTRA_COSTA_COUNTY\MXDS\EL_CERRITTO\ELM_STREET\FIG 2 PROJECT VICINITY.MXD - 11/12/2009 @ 11:55:52 AM 1,000 0 1,000 FEET Figure 2 Project Vicinity Map Legend Project Site City of El Cerrito ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Elm St Blake St Liberty St Manor Cir Rich mon d St Liberty St Elm St Manor Cir Source: NAIP 2005, ESRI Streetmap USA, PMC T:\_GIS\CONTRA_COSTA_COUNTY\MXDS\EL_CERRITTO\ELM_STREET\FIG 3 AERIAL.MXD - 11/12/2009 @ 1:44:30 PM 50 0 50 FEET Figure 3 Aerial Legend Project Site ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Source: Eddie Biggs Development T:\_CS\Work\El Cerrito, City of\1715 Elm Street 29-0152\figures Not to Scale Figure 4 Project Site Plan - - - - - - - ~ . I . i _ _ _ ~so.ooi - • _ I -r •I ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Blake St Elm St Hill St San Pablo Ave Key Blvd Richmond St Cutting Blvd Everett St Norvell St Kearney St Gladys Ave Ganges Ave Liberty St Walnut St Glen Mawr Ave Snowdon Ave Carlos Ave Wesley Ave Knott Ave Eastshore Blvd Hagen Blvd Donal Ave Lexington Ave Cypress Ave Kenilworth St S 56 Th St Plank Ave Junction Ave Manor Cir Harper St Carol Ct Hudson St School Tapscott Ave Downey Pl Ganges Ct Liberty St Lexington Ave Elm St Potrero Ave Kearney St Potrero Ave Everett St Junction Ave Hudson St Ba r t Source: Contra Costa County, PMC Legend Study Intersection Project Site Project Site 3 2 1 FEET 0 200 400 Figure 5 Study Intersections T:\_CS\Work\El Cerrito, City of\1715 Elm Street 29-0152\figures ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- 1715 ELM STREET City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street November 2009 Traffic Impact Analysis 15 TABLE 2 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) THRESHOLDS FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Average Control Delay per Vehicle (Seconds/Vehicle) Level of Service 0.0 ≤ 10.0 A 10.1 to 20.0 B 21.1 to 35.0 C 35.1 to 55.0 D 55.1 to 80.0 E ≥ 80.0 F Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 2000 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS The one unsignalized intersection was analyzed for the weekday AM and PM peak hour conditions. The vehicle delay and levels of service were determined based upon the procedures found in Chapter 17 of the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), using the Traffix (version 8.0) computer software. The delay values (represented in seconds) were qualified with a corresponding intersection LOS. Table 3 summarizes the delay thresholds for unsignalized intersections. TABLE 3 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) THRESHOLDS FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Average Control Delay per Vehicle (Seconds/Vehicle) Level of Service 0.0 ≤ 10.0 A 10.1 to 15.0 B 15.1 to 25.0 C 25.1 to 35.0 D 35.1 to 50.0 E ≥ 50.1 F Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 2000 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE Study area intersections were analyzed during the weekday AM and PM peak period to assess potential traffic impacts with the implementation of the project. The City of El Cerrito consider LOS D as the lowest acceptable operating condition at study intersections. For this study, the addition of the project’s traffic to an intersection was considered significant if it degraded intersection LOS from acceptable (LOS D or better) to unacceptable (LOS E or If an intersection is operating at an unacceptable LOS in the cumulative baseline condition, the project is considered to have a significant impact if it would add any delay to an intersection. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1715 ELM STREET 1715 Elm Street City of El Cerrito Traffic Impact Analysis November 2009 16 STUDY SCENARIOS This traffic study analyzed the following four traffic scenarios: • Existing Conditions. Existing conditions are represented by existing AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes at study intersection based on traffic counts collected in October 2009 by National Data Services, a qualified data collection firm. • Existing Plus Project Conditions. Estimated project traffic volumes were added to the existing AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes at study intersections. Existing Plus Project Conditions were evaluated relative to Existing Conditions in order to determine potential project impacts on study intersection operating conditions. • Cumulative Conditions. Cumulative Conditions represent the year 2025 conditions at study intersections. Cumulative Conditions traffic volumes were derived by adding 0.5 percent per year growth to existing volumes. Cumulative Conditions also incorporate traffic from proposed and approved development projects in the vicinity of the project site. For this study, two related development projects were added to the Cumulative Conditions. The first project is the previously mentioned expansion of the Windrush School from 250 to 330 students. The second project is the redevelopment of the former Target store (11450 San Pablo Avenue) to a Safeway and other on-site retail stores. • Cumulative Plus Project Conditions. Estimated project traffic volumes were added to Cumulative Conditions in order to evaluate the project’s potential impacts on study intersection operating conditions. All study scenarios analyzed potential impacts of the project on traffic operations at selected study area intersections for the weekday AM peak hour (7:00-9:00 AM) and PM peak hour (4:00- 6:00 PM) time periods. These time periods were used to represent a worst-case scenario at study intersections resulting from implementation of the project. EXISTING CONDITIONS This section documents the existing conditions in the study area. Figure 6 displays the intersection configurations and traffic control at study intersections while the following describes the study areas roadway characteristics. ROADWAY SYSTEM Regional access to the project site is provided by Interstate 80 (I-80) and Interstate 580 (I-580) freeways located west of the project site. Local access to the project site is provided by Elm Street, Richmond Street, Hill Street, Key Boulevard, Blake Street, and Potrero Avenue. All roadways in the immediate project vicinity serve primarily residential neighborhoods, and have curbs, gutters, sidewalks, on-street parking, and maximum posted speed limits of 25 miles per hour. On-street parking is limited to four hours (except by residential permit) between 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM due to the close proximity of the El Cerrito del Norte BART station. The following describes the local roadways that would serve the project. • Elm Street. Within the study area, Elm Street is a two-lane, north-south discontinuous roadway extending from Cutting Boulevard on the north to Blake Street on the south. South of Blake Street, Elm Street restarts from a T-intersection with Blake Street one block west of the Elm Street / Richmond Street / Blake Street intersection and continues to Schmidt Lane on the ---PAGE BREAK--- 1715 ELM STREET City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street November 2009 Traffic Impact Analysis 17 south. Elm Street has a minimum width of 40 feet curb-to-curb. Parking along Elm Street is limited to four hours (except by residential permit) between 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM with parking prohibited near driveways, fire hydrants, and intersections. The posted speed limit is 25 miles per hour, with a posted speed limit of 20 miles per hour near the project site as Elm Street curves to meet Richmond Street at Blake Street. • Richmond Street. Richmond Street is a two-lane, north-south roadway extending from Blake Street on the north to Fairmont Avenue on the south. On the northbound approach to the Elm Street / Richmond Street / Blake Street intersection, the posted speed limit on Richmond Street is reduced from 25 to 20 miles per hour as it curves to meet Elm Street at Blake Street. • Hill Street. Hill Street is a two-lane, east-west roadway extending from San Pablo Avenue on the west to Elm Street on the east. Hill Street fronts the south side of the El Cerrito del Norte BART station. • Key Boulevard. Key Boulevard is a two-lane, primarily north-south roadway extending from McLaughlin Street on the north to Elm Street on the south. Key Boulevard fronts the east side of the El Cerrito del Norte BART station. • Blake Street. Blake Street is a two-lane, east-west roadway extending from San Pablo Avenue on the west to Navellier Street on the east. • Potrero Avenue. Potrero Avenue is a two-lane, east-west roadway extending from Carlson Boulevard in the City of Richmond on the west Arlington Bouldevard on the east. Potrero Avenue provides access to I-80. PARKING PMC conducted two days of 12 hours of hourly surveys of on-street parking along Elm Street between Hill Street and Blake Street on a Tuesday and Thursday in October 2009. As indicated in Table 4, less than a third of the 40 on-street parking spaces within the surveyed Elm Street segment were occupied at any given time. It is worth noting that the observed on-street parking utilization in October 2009 was markedly lower than what was observed in September 2005. The average number of occupied parking spaces was seven in 2009 and was 17 in 2005 for all observed time periods. TABLE 4 EXISTING ON-STREET PARKING Time Occupied Spaces Unoccupied Spaces Morning (AM) 6:00 9 31 7:00 9 31 8:00 10 30 9:00 10 30 10:00 9 31 ---PAGE BREAK--- 1715 ELM STREET 1715 Elm Street City of El Cerrito Traffic Impact Analysis November 2009 18 Time Occupied Spaces Unoccupied Spaces Afternoon / Evening (PM) 3:00 9 31 4:00 9 31 5:00 12 28 6:00 10 30 7:00 8 32 8:00 8 32 9:00 6 34 10:00 7 33 11:00 7 33 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES Shared roadway bicycle markings were observed on Elm Street, Richmond Street, Hill Street, Key Boulevard, and Potrero Avenue from the BART overcrossing / Ohlone Greenway westward into the City of Richmond. About 2 blocks west of the project site, the Ohlone Greenway is a pedestrian and bicycle path that spans from the City of Berkeley to the City Richmond and runs adjacent to the BART elevated tracks. Pedestrian access to the project site is via paved sidewalks. Pedestrian crosswalks were observed at all legs of the study intersections with the exception of the north leg of the Elm Street / Hill Street / Key Boulevard intersection due to the unique intersection configuration. TRANSIT SERVICE The El Cerrito del Norte BART station is located about two block from the project site. BART trains operate in nine- to 16-minute intervals between 4:00 AM and 1:00 AM Monday through Friday; 6:00 AM to 1:00 AM on Saturdays; and 8:00 AM to 1:00 AM on Sundays and major holidays. The El Cerrito del Norte BART station is also served by AC Transit Routes 7, 71, 72, 72M, 72R, 76, and 376; Golden Gate Transit Routes 40 and 42; Fairfield-Suisun Transit Route 90; Vallejo Transit Route 80; WestCAT Routes 30Z, J, JL, JPX, JR, and JX; and the regional All Nighter (BART, 2009). North of the project site, AC Transit operates Lines 683 and 684 along Hill Street providing supplementary bus service to area schools including, El Cerrito High School, Portola Middle School, Windrush School, and John F. Kennedy High School. South of the project site, AC Transit operates Line G along Richmond Street from Potrero Avenue to Fairmont Avenue and provides weekday peak hour service to the San Francisco Transbay Terminal (AC Transit, 2009). CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM The Contra Costa Transportation Authority’s regional Congestion Management Program (CMP) monitors the performance of key regional arterials over time by working with local governments to gather regular updates on the LOS. The goal is to maintain acceptable LOS throughout the CMP network. The nearest monitoring station on the CMP network to the project site is the San Pablo Avenue / Cutting Boulevard intersection, where the CCTA endeavors to maintain an LOS E or better (CCTA, 2007). ---PAGE BREAK--- B ke St Elm St Hill St lo Ave Key Blvd Richmond St Cutting Blvd Everett St Norvell St y St Gladys Ave Gan St Walnut St on Ave e Ave Knott Ave e Blvd Hagen Blvd Donal Ave Le e Ave Kenilworth St S 56 Th St Plank Ave Junction Ave Manor Cir Harper St Carol Ct School Tapscott Ave l Ganges Ct Liberty St gton Ave Elm St ro Ave Kearne Potrero Ave Everett St Junction Ave Source: Contra Legend Study Intersection Project Site Project Site oo 1 Gan on Ave Kenilworth St l 3 y St e Av A e g ro Av A e Potrero B H lo Av A e e Blvd Le e FEET 0 200 400 Figure 6 Existing Conditions T:\_CS\Work\El Cerrito, City of\1715 Elm Street 29-0152\figures ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- 1715 ELM STREET City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street November 2009 Traffic Impact Analysis 21 INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE Existing weekday AM and PM peak period volumes in the study area (Figure 7) were collected in October 2009. Appendix A provides the existing traffic counts in the study area. The existing peak hour traffic volumes were input into the Traffix (Version 8.0) software to determine the existing LOS in the study area. Table 5 presents the results of the existing LOS analysis for signalized and unsignalized intersections, while the LOS calculation worksheets are provided in Appendix B. Data from three study intersections show current operations at acceptable levels of service during weekday AM and PM peak hour timeframes. TABLE 5 EXISTING INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY Intersection Existing Weekday AM Peak Hour Existing Weekday PM Peak Hour Delay LOS Delay LOS Signalized Elm Street / Hill Street / Key Boulevard 24.8 C 22.2 C AWSC Elm Street / Richmond Street / Blake Street 11.5 B 11.4 B Signalized Richmond Avenue / Potrero Avenue 13.9 B 13.6 B EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS PROJECT TRIP GENERATION, DISTRIBUTION, AND ASSIGNMENT The ITE Trip Generation Manual (7th Edition, 2003) was used to determine the traffic generated by the proposed project. As shown in Table 6, the proposed project is estimated to generate 86 daily trips, with one inbound and five outbound trips during the AM peak hour, and five inbound and three outbound trips during the PM peak hour. TABLE 6 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION Land Use Size Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total Single-Family Detached Housing (ITE Code 210) per dwelling unit 9.57 25% 75% 0.75 63% 37% 1.01 1 dwelling unit 10 0 1 1 1 0 1 Residential Condominium / Townhouse (ITE Code 230) per dwelling unit 5.86 17% 83% 0.44 67% 33% 0.52 13 dwelling units 76 1 5 6 5 2 7 Total 86 1 5 6 5 3 8 Source: ITE, 2003 Project trip distribution patterns were based on current traffic patterns. The project trip assignments at each study intersection are shown in Figure 8 (weekday and weekend PM peak hour volumes) ---PAGE BREAK--- 1715 ELM STREET 1715 Elm Street City of El Cerrito Traffic Impact Analysis November 2009 22 TRAFFIC VOLUMES Existing plus project weekday and weekend PM peak hour volumes were determined by adding the project trip assignment to the existing traffic volumes. Figure 9 illustrates the resulting existing plus project weekday and weekend PM peak hour traffic volumes. PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE Table 7 presents the results of the existing plus project intersection LOS analysis. Existing plus project LOS calculation sheets are provided in Appendix B. All of the study’s intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable levels of service during all peak hour scenarios. TABLE 7 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY Intersection Existing Plus Project Weekday AM Peak Hour Existing Plus Project Weekday PM Peak Hour Delay LOS Delay LOS Signalized Elm Street / Hill Street Key Boulevard 24.8 C 22.3 C AWSC Elm Street / Richmond Street / Blake Street 11.6 B 11.4 B Signalized Richmond Avenue / Potrero Avenue 13.9 B 13.6 B CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS Cumulative Conditions represent the year 2025 conditions at study intersections. Cumulative Conditions traffic volumes were derived by adding 0.5 percent per year growth to existing volumes. Cumulative Conditions also incorporate traffic from proposed and approved development projects in the vicinity of the project site. For this study, two related development projects were added to the Cumulative Conditions. The first project is the expansion of the Windrush School from 250 to 330 students. The second project is the redevelopment of the former Target store (11450 San Pablo Avenue) to a Safeway and other on-site retail stores. Trip generation estimates for the related projects were developed using trip rates provided in the ITE Trip Generation, 7th Edition. As illustrated in Table 8, the two approved/pending projects are forecast to generate approximately 7,607 weekday daily trips, with 302 AM peak hour trips (180 inbound and 122 outbound) and 795 PM peak hour trips (402 inbound and 393 outbound). TRAFFIC VOLUMES Figure 10 illustrates Cumulative Conditions traffic volumes at the study intersections. ---PAGE BREAK--- B ake St Elm St Hill St lo Ave Key Blvd Richmond St Cutting Blvd Everett St Norvell St y St Gladys Ave Gan St Walnut St on Ave e Ave Knott Ave e Blvd Hagen Blvd Donal Ave Le e Ave Kenilworth St S 56 Th St Plank Ave Junction Ave Manor Cir Harper St Carol Ct School Tapscott Ave l Ganges Ct Liberty St gton Ave Elm St ro Ave Kearne Potrero Ave Everett St Junction Ave Source: Contra Legend Study Intersection Project Site Project Site oo 1 Gan on Ave Kenilworth St l 207/120 7/10 148/136 176/266 149/157 97/52 220/110 2 B lo Av A e e Blvd Le e 8/17 27/27 14/9 12/12 19/28 7/11 25/21 264/346 9/16 29/74 357/186 124/28 3 y St e Av A e g ro Av A e Potrero 28/47 117/112 62/69 22/12 150/90 15/16 10/31 201/336 42/65 19/9 330/158 50/38 FEET 0 200 400 Figure 7 Existing Weekday AM / PM Traffic Volumes T:\_CS\Work\El Cerrito, City of\1715 Elm Street 29-0152\figures ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- B ake St Elm St Hill St lo Ave Key Blvd Richmond St Cutting Blvd Everett St Norvell St y St Gladys Ave Gan St Walnut St on Ave e Ave Knott Ave e Blvd Hagen Blvd Donal Ave Le e Ave Kenilworth St S 56 Th St Plank Ave Junction Ave Manor Cir Harper St Carol Ct School Tapscott Ave l Ganges Ct Liberty St gton Ave Elm St ro Ave Kearne Potrero Ave Everett St Junction Ave Source: Contra Legend Study Intersection Project Site Project Site oo 1 Gan on Ave Kenilworth St l 1/0 0/0 1/1 2/1 0/0 0/1 0/1 2 B lo Av A e e Blvd Le e 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/2 0/0 0/0 2/1 0/0 3 y St e Av A e g ro Av A e Potrero 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/2 0/0 0/0 0/1 0/0 FEET 0 200 400 Figure 8 Project Weekday AM / PM Traffic Volumes T:\_CS\Work\El Cerrito, City of\1715 Elm Street 29-0152\figures ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- B ake St Elm St Hill St lo Ave Key Blvd Richmond St Cutting Blvd Everett St Norvell St y St Gladys Ave Gan St Walnut St on Ave e Ave Knott Ave e Blvd Hagen Blvd Donal Ave Le e Ave Kenilworth St S 56 Th St Plank Ave Junction Ave Manor Cir Harper St Carol Ct School Tapscott Ave l Ganges Ct Liberty St gton Ave Elm St ro Ave Kearne Potrero Ave Everett St Junction Ave Source: Contra Legend Study Intersection Project Site Project Site oo 1 Gan on Ave Kenilworth St l 207/121 7/10 149/137 178/267 149/157 97/53 220/111 2 B lo Av A e e Blvd Le e 8/17 27/27 14/9 12/12 19/28 7/11 25/21 264/348 9/16 29/74 359/187 124/28 3 y St e Av A e g ro Av A e Potrero 28/47 117/112 62/69 22/12 150/90 15/16 10/31 201/338 42/45 19/9 332/159 50/35 FEET 0 200 400 Figure 9 Existing Plus Project Weekday AM / PM Traffic Volumes T:\_CS\Work\El Cerrito, City of\1715 Elm Street 29-0152\figures ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- B ake St Elm St Hill St lo Ave Key Blvd Richmond St Cutting Blvd Everett St Norvell St y St Gladys Ave Gan St Walnut St on Ave e Ave Knott Ave e Blvd Hagen Blvd Donal Ave Le e Ave Kenilworth St S 56 Th St Plank Ave Junction Ave Manor Cir Harper St Carol Ct School Tapscott Ave l Ganges Ct Liberty St gton Ave Elm St ro Ave Kearne Potrero Ave Everett St Junction Ave Source: Contra Legend Study Intersection Project Site Project Site oo 1 Gan on Ave Kenilworth St l 253/192 8/11 181/165 194/296 173/220 125/94 238/119 2 B lo Av A e e Blvd Le e 9/18 32/33 18/18 13/13 26/37 10/20 28/26 303/389 20/44 33/84 406/239 158/89 3 y St e Av A e g ro Av A e Potrero 32/52 128/123 70/86 27/19 163/99 16/17 11/34 240/398 49/81 23/16 373/205 56/39 FEET 0 200 400 Figure 10 Cumulative Weekday AM / PM Traffic Volumes T:\_CS\Work\El Cerrito, City of\1715 Elm Street 29-0152\figures ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- 1715 ELM STREET City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street November 2009 Traffic Impact Analysis 31 TABLE 8 CUMULATIVE PROPOSED AND APPROVED PROJECTS TRIP GENERATION Land Use Size Daily Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total Windrush School Private School (K-8) (ITE Code 534) per student 2.78 55% 45% 0.90 47% 53% 0.61 80 student 222 40 32 72 23 26 49 Safeway and Retail Stores Supermarket (ITE Code 850) per KSF 102.24 61% 39% 3.25 51% 49% 10.45 66.511 KSF 6,800 132 84 216 354 341 695 Shopping Center (ITE Code 820) per KSF 42.94 61% 39% 1.03 48% 52% 3.75 13.602 KSF 584 9 5 14 24 27 51 Total 7,607 180 122 302 402 393 795 Source: ITE, 2003; Safeway, 2009; City of El Cerrito, 2009 PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE Table 9 presents the results of the cumulative (i.e. surrounding projects plus ambient traffic growth) intersection LOS analysis. Cumulative LOS calculation sheets are provided in Appendix B. All of the study’s intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable levels of service during all peak hour scenarios. It should be noted that for future scenarios cumulative, cumulative plus project), all intersection geometrics are the same as under existing conditions. TABLE 9 CUMULATIVE INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY Intersection Cumulative Weekday AM Peak Hour Cumulative Weekday PM Peak Hour Delay LOS Delay LOS Signalized Elm Street / Hill Street Key Boulevard 27.6 C 25.7 C AWSC Elm Street / Richmond Street / Blake Street 13.4 B 14.0 B Signalized Richmond Avenue / Potrero Avenue 14.1 B 13.9 B CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS TRAFFIC VOLUMES Cumulative plus project weekday and weekend PM peak hour volumes were determined by adding the project trip assignment to the cumulative volumes. Figure 11 illustrates the resulting cumulative plus project weekday and weekend PM levels of service. No changes in intersection geometrics were assumed. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1715 ELM STREET 1715 Elm Street City of El Cerrito Traffic Impact Analysis November 2009 32 PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE Table 10 presents the results of the cumulative plus project intersection LOS analysis. Cumulative plus project LOS calculation sheets are provided in Appendix B. All of the study’s signalized intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable levels of service during all peak hour scenarios. TABLE 10 CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY Intersection Cumulative Plus Project Weekday AM Peak Hour Cumulative Plus Project Weekday PM Peak Hour Delay LOS Delay LOS Signalized Elm Street / Hill Street Key Boulevard 27.6 C 25.7 C AWSC Elm Street / Richmond Street / Blake Street 13.4 B 14.1 B Signalized Richmond Avenue / Potrero Avenue 14.1 B 13.9 B IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Would the project cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume-to-capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? Less than significant impact. The project would generate six weekday AM peak hour trips and eight weekday PM peak hour trips. When compared to existing and cumulative conditions, the project would not substantially increase traffic volumes or congestion in the study area. As reflected in Table 7 and Table 10, the project would not create any project-related significant impacts by degrading LOS at study intersections to unacceptable levels during the existing plus project condition or the cumulative plus project condition. Would the project exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Less than significant impact. The project would generate six weekday AM peak hour trips and eight weekday PM peak hour trips. According to CCTA guidelines for traffic studies, projects generating less than 100 peak hour trips are considered to have a less than significant impact on the CMP roadway network. Would the project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact. The project is a residential development and is not located in the vicinity of any public or private airports. ---PAGE BREAK--- B ake St Elm St Hill St lo Ave Key Blvd Richmond St Cutting Blvd Everett St Norvell St y St Gladys Ave Gan St Walnut St on Ave e Ave Knott Ave e Blvd Hagen Blvd Donal Ave Le e Ave Kenilworth St S 56 Th St Plank Ave Junction Ave Manor Cir Harper St Carol Ct School Tapscott Ave l Ganges Ct Liberty St gton Ave Elm St ro Ave Kearne Potrero Ave Everett St Junction Ave Source: Contra Legend Study Intersection Project Site Project Site oo 1 Gan on Ave Kenilworth St l 253/193 8/11 182/166 196/297 173/220 125/95 232/120 2 B lo Av A e e Blvd Le e 9/18 32/34 18/18 13/13 26/38 10/20 28/26 303/390 20/44 33/84 408/240 158/89 3 y St e Av A e g ro Av A e Potrero 32/52 128/123 70/86 27/19 163/99 16/17 11/34 241/400 49/81 23/16 373/206 56/39 FEET 0 200 400 Figure 11 Cumulative Plus Project Weekday AM / PM Traffic Volumes T:\_CS\Work\El Cerrito, City of\1715 Elm Street 29-0152\figures ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- 1715 ELM STREET City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street November 2009 Traffic Impact Analysis 35 Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses farm equipment)? Less than significant impact. The project would not modify existing intersections or roadways, including Elm Street. Other than improving the sidewalk fronting the project along Elm Street, the project would not alter the existing travel flow of vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians. The project driveway is consistent with City code requirements at 20 feet in width. Because the project is a residential project is a predominately residential neighborhood, the project would not introduce any incompatible uses. Previous speed measurements of through traffic along Elm Street and Richmond Street suggested a possible hazardous condition due to the combination of vehicle speeds and limited sight distance (DHA, 2006). However, since those observations were conducted, the intersection of Elm Street / Richmond Street / Blake Street has been modified to include stops for the northbound and southbound through movements. This has effectively reduced the speed along Elm Street and Richmond Street such that the limited sight distance would not result in a hazardous condition. Would the project result in inadequate parking capacity? Less than significant impact. The project would meet City code requirements for multi-family residential off-street parking two spaces per dwelling unit or 28 parking spaces) when considering the project’s proximity to the El Cerrito del Norte BART station, which reduces the parking requirement by 25 percent for a total off-street parking supply of 21 spaces. In addition, the project would include ground floor garages and an on-site car sharing program (El Cerrito, 2009). As indicated in Table 4, there is a sufficient supply of on-street parking along Elm Street throughout the day. Although the project may result in some additional on-street parking demand, the available capacity is considered ample to meet that demand as less than a third of the existing on-street parking supply is currently utilized throughout the day. Would the project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Less than significant impact. The project would not conflict with any adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. Although the project would provide a location for on-site bicycle storage, it is unclear whether the project would meet City code requirements for bicycle parking four long-term and two short-term bicycle parking spaces). Because the provision of the bicycle parking is a code requirement and the applicant is not seeking a bicycle parking variance, it can be assume for purposes of this analysis that the on-site bicycle storage will meet code requirements. REFERENCES Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit). 2009. http://www2.actransit.org/main.wu. Website Accessed November 2, 2009. Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART). 2009. http://www.bart.gov.stations/deln/index.aspx. Website Accessed November 2, 2009. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1715 ELM STREET 1715 Elm Street City of El Cerrito Traffic Impact Analysis November 2009 36 California Department of Transportation. 2002. Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies. City of El Cerrito. 2009. RFP, 1715 Elm Street. Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA). 2006. Technical Procedures Update. Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA). 2007. 2007 Update-Contra Costa Congestion Management Program. Douglas Herring and Associates (DHA). 2006. 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Mitigation Negative Declaration. Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). 2003. Trip Generation Manual (7th Edition). National Data Services. 2009. Traffic counts. Safeway. 2009. http://www.safeway-store.com. Website Accessed November 2, 2009. Transportation Research Board. 2000. 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDICES ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX A – TRAFFIC COUNTS ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- All Traffic Data (916) 771-8700 F (916) 786-2879 File Name : 09-7421-002 KEY-HILL-F Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 10/21/2009 Page No : 1 EL CERRITO Groups Printed- Unshifted KEY BLVD. Southeastbound ELM ST. Southbound ELM ST. Northbound HILL ST. Eastbound Start Time Hard Left Bear Right Hard Right App. Total Thru Right Hard Right App. Total Left Bear Left Thru App. Total Hard Left Left Right App. Total Int. Total 07:00 0 16 0 16 26 0 1 27 9 7 7 23 7 2 6 15 81 07:15 0 17 0 17 36 0 0 36 0 17 6 23 4 5 9 18 94 07:30 0 26 0 26 37 0 1 38 0 23 13 36 2 15 14 31 131 07:45 0 68 0 68 40 0 1 41 0 30 32 62 2 22 14 38 209 Total 0 127 0 127 139 0 3 142 9 77 58 144 15 44 43 102 515 08:00 0 55 0 55 49 0 2 51 0 41 39 80 5 23 17 45 231 08:15 0 53 0 53 53 0 2 55 0 63 47 110 6 51 43 100 318 08:30 0 44 0 44 65 0 2 67 0 42 30 72 7 33 23 63 246 08:45 0 37 0 37 47 0 1 48 0 40 14 54 1 26 10 37 176 Total 0 189 0 189 214 0 7 221 0 186 130 316 19 133 93 245 971 BREAK 16:00 1 34 0 35 22 0 0 22 0 44 28 72 6 38 14 58 187 16:15 1 22 0 23 32 0 0 32 0 50 27 77 3 26 9 38 170 16:30 0 31 0 31 21 0 1 22 0 56 36 92 3 22 14 39 184 16:45 1 19 0 20 25 0 0 25 0 60 30 90 5 31 12 48 183 Total 3 106 0 109 100 0 1 101 0 210 121 331 17 117 49 183 724 17:00 0 28 0 28 30 0 4 34 0 76 32 108 2 33 14 49 219 17:15 0 28 0 28 28 0 2 30 0 69 39 108 2 32 13 47 213 17:30 0 23 0 23 29 0 2 31 0 75 31 106 4 38 11 53 213 17:45 0 31 0 31 33 0 2 35 0 46 34 80 5 41 14 60 206 Total 0 110 0 110 120 0 10 130 0 266 136 402 13 144 52 209 851 Grand Total 3 532 0 535 573 0 21 594 9 [PHONE REDACTED] 64 438 [PHONE REDACTED] % 0.6 99.4 0 96.5 0 3.5 0.8 61.9 37.3 8.7 59.3 32.1 Total % 0.1 17.4 0 17.5 18.7 0 0.7 19.4 0.3 24.1 14.5 39 2.1 14.3 7.7 24.1 KEY BLVD. Southeastbound ELM ST. Southbound ELM ST. Northbound HILL ST. Eastbound Start Time Hard Left Bear Right Hard Right App. Total Thru Right Hard Right App. Total Left Bear Left Thru App. Total Hard Left Left Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 to 08:45 - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:45 07:45 0 68 0 68 40 0 1 41 0 30 32 62 2 22 14 38 209 08:00 0 55 0 55 49 0 2 51 0 41 39 80 5 23 17 45 231 08:15 0 53 0 53 53 0 2 55 0 63 47 110 6 51 43 100 318 08:30 0 44 0 44 65 0 2 67 0 42 30 72 7 33 23 63 246 Total Volume 0 220 0 220 207 0 7 214 0 176 148 324 20 129 97 246 1004 % App. Total 0 100 0 96.7 0 3.3 0 54.3 45.7 8.1 52.4 39.4 PHF .000 .809 .000 .809 .796 .000 .875 .799 .000 .698 .787 .736 .714 .632 .564 .615 .789 ---PAGE BREAK--- All Traffic Data (916) 771-8700 F (916) 786-2879 File Name : 09-7421-002 KEY-HILL-F Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 10/21/2009 Page No : 2 EL CERRITO KEY BLVD. ELM ST. HILL ST. ELM ST. Hard Right 7 Right 0 Thru 207 In Out Total 277 214 491 Left 0 Bear Left 176 Thru 148 Out Total In 524 324 848 Hard Left 20 Left 129 Right 97 Total Out In 0 246 246 Hard Right 0 Bear Right 220 Hard Left 0 Out 203 In 220 Total 423 Peak Hour Begins at 07:45 Unshifted Peak Hour Data North Peak Hour Analysis From 16:00 to 17:45 - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 17:00 17:00 0 28 0 28 30 0 4 34 0 76 32 108 2 33 14 49 219 17:15 0 28 0 28 28 0 2 30 0 69 39 108 2 32 13 47 213 17:30 0 23 0 23 29 0 2 31 0 75 31 106 4 38 11 53 213 17:45 0 31 0 31 33 0 2 35 0 46 34 80 5 41 14 60 206 Total Volume 0 110 0 110 120 0 10 130 0 266 136 402 13 144 52 209 851 % App. Total 0 100 0 92.3 0 7.7 0 66.2 33.8 6.2 68.9 24.9 PHF .000 .887 .000 .887 .909 .000 .625 .929 .000 .875 .872 .931 .650 .878 .929 .871 .971 ---PAGE BREAK--- All Traffic Data (916) 771-8700 F (916) 786-2879 File Name : 09-7421-002 KEY-HILL-F Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 10/21/2009 Page No : 3 EL CERRITO KEY BLVD. ELM ST. HILL ST. ELM ST. Hard Right 10 Right 0 Thru 120 In Out Total 280 130 410 Left 0 Bear Left 266 Thru 136 Out Total In 282 402 684 Hard Left 13 Left 144 Right 52 Total Out In 0 209 209 Hard Right 0 Bear Right 110 Hard Left 0 Out 289 In 110 Total 399 Peak Hour Begins at 17:00 Unshifted Peak Hour Data North ---PAGE BREAK--- All Traffic Data (916) 771-8700 F (916) 786-2879 File Name : 09-7421-003 ELM-BLAKE-F Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 10/21/2009 Page No : 1 EL CERRITO Groups Printed- Unshifted ELM ST. Southbound BLAKE ST. Westbound RICHMOND ST. Northbound BLAKE ST. Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total 07:00 1 20 6 27 1 4 2 7 1 12 1 14 1 1 1 3 51 07:15 2 44 18 64 4 4 3 11 3 17 1 21 1 1 2 4 100 07:30 4 43 18 65 0 0 6 6 2 29 1 32 1 0 0 1 104 07:45 5 78 36 119 2 1 7 10 1 49 2 52 3 0 7 10 191 Total 12 185 78 275 7 9 18 34 7 107 5 119 6 2 10 18 446 08:00 14 100 28 142 3 7 8 18 3 64 5 72 7 2 7 16 248 08:15 7 91 24 122 4 3 9 16 2 88 1 91 6 3 8 17 246 08:30 3 88 36 127 3 3 3 9 3 63 0 66 3 2 3 8 210 08:45 6 70 17 93 4 5 10 19 2 33 0 35 7 1 6 14 161 Total 30 349 105 484 14 18 30 62 10 248 6 264 23 8 24 55 865 BREAK 16:00 12 47 13 72 1 3 6 10 2 60 4 66 5 4 2 11 159 16:15 2 48 9 59 3 2 3 8 4 66 6 76 5 2 7 14 157 16:30 12 40 14 66 1 4 8 13 3 82 4 89 5 3 4 12 180 16:45 4 42 7 53 3 2 3 8 2 81 2 85 7 5 6 18 164 Total 30 177 43 250 8 11 20 39 11 289 16 316 22 14 19 55 660 17:00 3 49 19 71 5 1 5 11 6 89 6 101 10 4 5 19 202 17:15 10 41 19 70 3 3 11 17 6 95 1 102 7 5 4 16 205 17:30 7 40 19 66 2 3 4 9 3 94 4 101 7 2 4 13 189 17:45 8 56 17 81 2 2 7 11 1 68 6 75 4 0 8 12 179 Total 28 186 74 288 12 9 27 48 16 346 17 379 28 11 21 60 775 Grand Total 100 [PHONE REDACTED] 41 47 95 183 44 990 44 1078 79 35 74 188 2746 % 7.7 69.2 23.1 22.4 25.7 51.9 4.1 91.8 4.1 42 18.6 39.4 Total % 3.6 32.7 10.9 47.2 1.5 1.7 3.5 6.7 1.6 36.1 1.6 39.3 2.9 1.3 2.7 6.8 ELM ST. Southbound BLAKE ST. Westbound RICHMOND ST. Northbound BLAKE ST. Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 to 08:45 - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:45 07:45 5 78 36 119 2 1 7 10 1 49 2 52 3 0 7 10 191 08:00 14 100 28 142 3 7 8 18 3 64 5 72 7 2 7 16 248 08:15 7 91 24 122 4 3 9 16 2 88 1 91 6 3 8 17 246 08:30 3 88 36 127 3 3 3 9 3 63 0 66 3 2 3 8 210 Total Volume 29 357 124 510 12 14 27 53 9 264 8 281 19 7 25 51 895 % App. Total 5.7 70 24.3 22.6 26.4 50.9 3.2 94 2.8 37.3 13.7 49 PHF .518 .893 .861 .898 .750 .500 .750 .736 .750 .750 .400 .772 .679 .583 .781 .750 .902 ---PAGE BREAK--- All Traffic Data (916) 771-8700 F (916) 786-2879 File Name : 09-7421-003 ELM-BLAKE-F Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 10/21/2009 Page No : 2 EL CERRITO ELM ST. BLAKE ST. BLAKE ST. RICHMOND ST. Right 124 Thru 357 Left 29 In Out Total 310 510 820 Right 27 Thru 14 Left 12 Out Total In 44 53 97 Left 9 Thru 264 Right 8 Out Total In 394 281 675 Left 19 Thru 7 Right 25 Total Out In 147 51 198 Peak Hour Begins at 07:45 Unshifted Peak Hour Data North Peak Hour Analysis From 16:00 to 17:45 - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 17:00 17:00 3 49 19 71 5 1 5 11 6 89 6 101 10 4 5 19 202 17:15 10 41 19 70 3 3 11 17 6 95 1 102 7 5 4 16 205 17:30 7 40 19 66 2 3 4 9 3 94 4 101 7 2 4 13 189 17:45 8 56 17 81 2 2 7 11 1 68 6 75 4 0 8 12 179 Total Volume 28 186 74 288 12 9 27 48 16 346 17 379 28 11 21 60 775 % App. Total 9.7 64.6 25.7 25 18.8 56.2 4.2 91.3 4.5 46.7 18.3 35 PHF .700 .830 .974 .889 .600 .750 .614 .706 .667 .911 .708 .929 .700 .550 .656 .789 .945 ---PAGE BREAK--- All Traffic Data (916) 771-8700 F (916) 786-2879 File Name : 09-7421-003 ELM-BLAKE-F Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 10/21/2009 Page No : 3 EL CERRITO ELM ST. BLAKE ST. BLAKE ST. RICHMOND ST. Right 74 Thru 186 Left 28 In Out Total 401 288 689 Right 27 Thru 9 Left 12 Out Total In 56 48 104 Left 16 Thru 346 Right 17 Out Total In 219 379 598 Left 28 Thru 11 Right 21 Total Out In 99 60 159 Peak Hour Begins at 17:00 Unshifted Peak Hour Data North ---PAGE BREAK--- All Traffic Data (916) 771-8700 F (916) 786-2879 File Name : 09-7421-001 RICHMOND-POTRERO-F Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 10/21/2009 Page No : 1 EL CERRITO Groups Printed- Unshifted RICHMOND ST. Southbound POTRERO AVE. Westbound RICHMOND ST. Northbound POTRERO AVE. Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total 07:00 0 15 7 22 3 22 0 25 6 12 0 18 1 3 4 8 73 07:15 0 43 6 49 7 16 4 27 5 15 4 24 2 10 4 16 116 07:30 0 39 4 43 3 28 3 34 11 25 2 38 4 8 15 27 142 07:45 2 77 8 87 3 24 10 37 9 34 1 44 8 24 12 44 212 Total 2 174 25 201 16 90 17 123 31 86 7 124 15 45 35 95 543 08:00 9 93 9 111 4 43 2 49 11 55 6 72 7 39 25 71 303 08:15 5 79 21 105 3 39 6 48 12 77 2 91 8 33 13 54 298 08:30 3 81 12 96 5 44 4 53 10 35 1 46 5 21 12 38 233 08:45 5 68 11 84 5 26 2 33 10 31 3 44 3 24 15 42 203 Total 22 321 53 396 17 152 14 183 43 198 12 253 23 117 65 205 1037 BREAK 16:00 3 39 5 47 2 16 2 20 11 55 5 71 10 31 11 52 190 16:15 3 52 5 60 5 15 2 22 14 62 8 84 11 24 12 47 213 16:30 2 34 11 47 5 24 0 29 12 81 2 95 10 30 11 51 222 16:45 2 40 7 49 6 26 3 35 10 70 7 87 12 27 20 59 230 Total 10 165 28 203 18 81 7 106 47 268 22 337 43 112 54 209 855 17:00 4 43 14 61 3 26 3 32 21 83 6 110 16 33 18 67 270 17:15 1 41 6 48 5 19 4 28 12 92 10 114 8 28 12 48 238 17:30 2 34 8 44 2 19 2 23 22 91 8 121 11 24 19 54 242 17:45 6 53 6 65 2 21 3 26 15 54 2 71 15 28 15 58 220 Total 13 171 34 218 12 85 12 109 70 320 26 416 50 113 64 227 970 Grand Total 47 [PHONE REDACTED] 63 408 50 521 191 872 67 1130 131 387 [PHONE REDACTED] % 4.6 81.6 13.8 12.1 78.3 9.6 16.9 77.2 5.9 17.8 52.6 29.6 Total % 1.4 24.4 4.1 29.9 1.9 12 1.5 15.3 5.6 25.6 2 33.2 3.8 11.4 6.4 21.6 RICHMOND ST. Southbound POTRERO AVE. Westbound RICHMOND ST. Northbound POTRERO AVE. Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 to 08:45 - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:45 07:45 2 77 8 87 3 24 10 37 9 34 1 44 8 24 12 44 212 08:00 9 93 9 111 4 43 2 49 11 55 6 72 7 39 25 71 303 08:15 5 79 21 105 3 39 6 48 12 77 2 91 8 33 13 54 298 08:30 3 81 12 96 5 44 4 53 10 35 1 46 5 21 12 38 233 Total Volume 19 330 50 399 15 150 22 187 42 201 10 253 28 117 62 207 1046 % App. Total 4.8 82.7 12.5 8 80.2 11.8 16.6 79.4 4 13.5 56.5 30 PHF .528 .887 .595 .899 .750 .852 .550 .882 .875 .653 .417 .695 .875 .750 .620 .729 .863 ---PAGE BREAK--- All Traffic Data (916) 771-8700 F (916) 786-2879 File Name : 09-7421-001 RICHMOND-POTRERO-F Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 10/21/2009 Page No : 2 EL CERRITO RICHMOND ST. POTRERO AVE. POTRERO AVE. RICHMOND ST. Right 50 Thru 330 Left 19 In Out Total 251 399 650 Right 22 Thru 150 Left 15 Out Total In 146 187 333 Left 42 Thru 201 Right 10 Out Total In 407 253 660 Left 28 Thru 117 Right 62 Total Out In 242 207 449 Peak Hour Begins at 07:45 Unshifted Peak Hour Data North Peak Hour Analysis From 16:00 to 17:45 - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 16:45 16:45 2 40 7 49 6 26 3 35 10 70 7 87 12 27 20 59 230 17:00 4 43 14 61 3 26 3 32 21 83 6 110 16 33 18 67 270 17:15 1 41 6 48 5 19 4 28 12 92 10 114 8 28 12 48 238 17:30 2 34 8 44 2 19 2 23 22 91 8 121 11 24 19 54 242 Total Volume 9 158 35 202 16 90 12 118 65 336 31 432 47 112 69 228 980 % App. Total 4.5 78.2 17.3 13.6 76.3 10.2 15 77.8 7.2 20.6 49.1 30.3 PHF .563 .919 .625 .828 .667 .865 .750 .843 .739 .913 .775 .893 .734 .848 .863 .851 .907 ---PAGE BREAK--- All Traffic Data (916) 771-8700 F (916) 786-2879 File Name : 09-7421-001 RICHMOND-POTRERO-F Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 10/21/2009 Page No : 3 EL CERRITO RICHMOND ST. POTRERO AVE. POTRERO AVE. RICHMOND ST. Right 35 Thru 158 Left 9 In Out Total 395 202 597 Right 12 Thru 90 Left 16 Out Total In 152 118 270 Left 65 Thru 336 Right 31 Out Total In 243 432 675 Left 47 Thru 112 Right 69 Total Out In 190 228 418 Peak Hour Begins at 16:45 Unshifted Peak Hour Data North ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX B – LOS CALCULATION WORKSHEETS ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Existing AM Wed Nov 11, 2009 15:37:04 Page 2-1 City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #1 Elm St / Hill St / Key Bl Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.318 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 24.8 Optimal Cycle: 33 Level Of Service: C Street Name: Elm St Hill St / Key Bl Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Split Phase Split Phase Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Module: Count Date: 21 Oct 2009 Base Vol: 176 148 0 0 207 7 149 0 317 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 176 148 0 0 207 7 149 0 317 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 176 148 0 0 207 7 149 0 317 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 176 148 0 0 207 7 149 0 317 0 0 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 176 148 0 0 207 7 149 0 317 0 0 0 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1805 1900 0 0 1900 1615 1805 0 2842 0 0 0 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.10 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crit Moves: Green/Cycle: 0.31 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.34 0.35 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.32 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.01 0.24 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 Delay/Veh: 27.0 26.3 0.0 0.0 24.5 21.7 23.2 0.0 23.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 27.0 26.3 0.0 0.0 24.5 21.7 23.2 0.0 23.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 LOS by Move: C C A A C C C A C A A A HCM2kAvgQ: 4 3 0 0 5 0 3 0 4 0 0 0 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to PMC, TORRANCE ---PAGE BREAK--- Existing AM Wed Nov 11, 2009 15:37:04 Page 3-1 City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #2 Elm St / Richmond St / Blake St Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.549 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 11.5 Optimal Cycle: 0 Level Of Service: B Street Name: Elm St / Richmond St Blake St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 Volume Module: Count Date: 21 Oct 2009 Base Vol: 9 264 8 29 357 124 19 7 25 12 14 27 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 9 264 8 29 357 124 19 7 25 12 14 27 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 9 264 8 29 357 124 19 7 25 12 14 27 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 9 264 8 29 357 124 19 7 25 12 14 27 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 9 264 8 29 357 124 19 7 25 12 14 27 Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.03 0.97 1.00 0.08 0.92 1.00 0.37 0.14 0.49 0.23 0.26 0.51 Final Sat.: 22 651 770 53 650 818 220 81 290 135 157 303 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.41 0.41 0.01 0.55 0.55 0.15 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 Crit Moves: Delay/Veh: 11.4 11.4 7.3 13.6 13.6 7.8 8.9 8.9 8.9 8.9 8.9 8.9 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 11.4 11.4 7.3 13.6 13.6 7.8 8.9 8.9 8.9 8.9 8.9 8.9 LOS by Move: B B A B B A A A A A A A ApproachDel: 11.3 12.2 8.9 8.9 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 11.3 12.2 8.9 8.9 LOS by Appr: B B A A AllWayAvgQ: 0.6 0.6 0.0 1.1 1.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to PMC, TORRANCE ---PAGE BREAK--- Existing AM Wed Nov 11, 2009 15:37:04 Page 4-1 City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #3 Richmond St / Potrero Av Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.337 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 13.9 Optimal Cycle: 22 Level Of Service: B Street Name: Richmond St Potrero Av Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 Volume Module: Count Date: 21 Oct 2009 Base Vol: 42 201 10 19 330 50 28 117 62 15 150 22 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 42 201 10 19 330 50 28 117 62 15 150 22 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 42 201 10 19 330 50 28 117 62 15 150 22 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 42 201 10 19 330 50 28 117 62 15 150 22 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 42 201 10 19 330 50 28 117 62 15 150 22 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.96 0.96 0.96 Lanes: 0.17 0.79 0.04 0.05 0.83 0.12 0.14 0.56 0.30 0.08 0.80 0.12 Final Sat.: 283 1355 67 87 1517 230 235 981 [PHONE REDACTED] 214 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.10 0.10 0.10 Crit Moves: Green/Cycle: 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 Volume/Cap: 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.29 0.29 0.29 Delay/Veh: 7.5 7.5 7.5 8.2 8.2 8.2 24.0 24.0 24.0 23.5 23.5 23.5 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 7.5 7.5 7.5 8.2 8.2 8.2 24.0 24.0 24.0 23.5 23.5 23.5 LOS by Move: A A A A A A C C C C C C HCM2kAvgQ: 3 3 3 6 6 6 5 5 5 4 4 4 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to PMC, TORRANCE ---PAGE BREAK--- Existing PM Wed Nov 11, 2009 15:37:05 Page 2-1 City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #1 Elm St / Hill St / Key Bl Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.298 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 22.2 Optimal Cycle: 32 Level Of Service: C Street Name: Elm St Hill St / Key Bl Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Split Phase Split Phase Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 266 136 0 0 120 10 157 0 162 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 266 136 0 0 120 10 157 0 162 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 266 136 0 0 120 10 157 0 162 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 266 136 0 0 120 10 157 0 162 0 0 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 266 136 0 0 120 10 157 0 162 0 0 0 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1805 1900 0 0 1900 1615 1805 0 2842 0 0 0 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.15 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crit Moves: Green/Cycle: 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.21 0.29 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.30 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.03 0.30 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Del: 14.9 13.7 0.0 0.0 33.1 31.2 27.4 0.0 26.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 IncremntDel: 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Delay/Veh: 15.1 13.8 0.0 0.0 33.5 31.3 27.7 0.0 26.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 15.1 13.8 0.0 0.0 33.5 31.3 27.7 0.0 26.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 LOS by Move: B B A A C C C A C A A A HCM2kAvgQ: 5 2 0 0 3 0 4 0 2 0 0 0 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to PMC, TORRANCE ---PAGE BREAK--- Existing PM Wed Nov 11, 2009 15:37:05 Page 3-1 City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #2 Elm St / Richmond St / Blake St Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.516 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 11.4 Optimal Cycle: 0 Level Of Service: B Street Name: Elm St / Richmond St Blake St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 Volume Module: Count Date: 21 Oct 2009 Base Vol: 16 346 17 74 186 28 28 11 21 12 9 27 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 16 346 17 74 186 28 28 11 21 12 9 27 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 16 346 17 74 186 28 28 11 21 12 9 27 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 16 346 17 74 186 28 28 11 21 12 9 27 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 16 346 17 74 186 28 28 11 21 12 9 27 Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.04 0.96 1.00 0.28 0.72 1.00 0.47 0.18 0.35 0.25 0.19 0.56 Final Sat.: 31 670 812 192 482 795 280 110 210 153 115 344 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.52 0.52 0.02 0.39 0.39 0.04 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.08 0.08 0.08 Crit Moves: Delay/Veh: 12.9 12.9 7.1 11.1 11.1 7.3 9.0 9.0 9.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 12.9 12.9 7.1 11.1 11.1 7.3 9.0 9.0 9.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 LOS by Move: B B A B B A A A A A A A ApproachDel: 12.6 10.7 9.0 8.7 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 12.6 10.7 9.0 8.7 LOS by Appr: B B A A AllWayAvgQ: 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to PMC, TORRANCE ---PAGE BREAK--- Existing PM Wed Nov 11, 2009 15:37:05 Page 4-1 City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #3 Richmond St / Potrero Av Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.382 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 13.6 Optimal Cycle: 23 Level Of Service: B Street Name: Richmond St Potrero Av Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 65 336 31 9 158 35 47 112 69 16 90 12 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 65 336 31 9 158 35 47 112 69 16 90 12 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 65 336 31 9 158 35 47 112 69 16 90 12 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 65 336 31 9 158 35 47 112 69 16 90 12 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 65 336 31 9 158 35 47 112 69 16 90 12 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.94 0.94 0.94 Lanes: 0.15 0.78 0.07 0.04 0.79 0.17 0.21 0.49 0.30 0.14 0.76 0.10 Final Sat.: 263 1361 126 81 1427 316 349 831 [PHONE REDACTED] 182 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.07 0.07 0.07 Crit Moves: Green/Cycle: 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 Volume/Cap: 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.19 0.19 0.19 Uniform Del: 8.3 8.3 8.3 7.0 7.0 7.0 24.2 24.2 24.2 22.4 22.4 22.4 IncremntDel: 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 8.5 8.5 8.5 7.1 7.1 7.1 24.6 24.6 24.6 22.5 22.5 22.5 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 8.5 8.5 8.5 7.1 7.1 7.1 24.6 24.6 24.6 22.5 22.5 22.5 LOS by Move: A A A A A A C C C C C C HCM2kAvgQ: 6 6 6 2 2 2 5 5 5 2 2 2 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to PMC, TORRANCE ---PAGE BREAK--- Existing+Project AM Wed Nov 11, 2009 15:37:08 Page 2-1 City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #1 Elm St / Hill St / Key Bl Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.319 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 24.8 Optimal Cycle: 33 Level Of Service: C Street Name: Elm St Hill St / Key Bl Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Split Phase Split Phase Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Module: Count Date: 21 Oct 2009 Base Vol: 176 148 0 0 207 7 149 0 317 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 176 148 0 0 207 7 149 0 317 0 0 0 Added Vol: 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 178 149 0 0 207 7 149 0 317 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 178 149 0 0 207 7 149 0 317 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 178 149 0 0 207 7 149 0 317 0 0 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 178 149 0 0 207 7 149 0 317 0 0 0 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1805 1900 0 0 1900 1615 1805 0 2842 0 0 0 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.10 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crit Moves: Green/Cycle: 0.31 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.34 0.35 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.32 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.01 0.24 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Del: 26.5 25.9 0.0 0.0 24.3 21.8 23.1 0.0 23.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 IncremntDel: 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Delay/Veh: 26.8 26.1 0.0 0.0 24.6 21.8 23.3 0.0 24.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 26.8 26.1 0.0 0.0 24.6 21.8 23.3 0.0 24.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 LOS by Move: C C A A C C C A C A A A HCM2kAvgQ: 4 3 0 0 5 0 3 0 4 0 0 0 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to PMC, TORRANCE ---PAGE BREAK--- Existing+Project AM Wed Nov 11, 2009 15:37:08 Page 3-1 City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #2 Elm St / Richmond St / Blake St Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.552 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 11.6 Optimal Cycle: 0 Level Of Service: B Street Name: Elm St / Richmond St Blake St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 Volume Module: Count Date: 21 Oct 2009 Base Vol: 9 264 8 29 357 124 19 7 25 12 14 27 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 9 264 8 29 357 124 19 7 25 12 14 27 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 9 264 8 29 359 124 19 7 25 12 14 27 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 9 264 8 29 359 124 19 7 25 12 14 27 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 9 264 8 29 359 124 19 7 25 12 14 27 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 9 264 8 29 359 124 19 7 25 12 14 27 Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.03 0.97 1.00 0.07 0.93 1.00 0.37 0.14 0.49 0.23 0.26 0.51 Final Sat.: 22 651 770 53 650 818 220 81 289 135 157 303 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.41 0.41 0.01 0.55 0.55 0.15 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 Crit Moves: Delay/Veh: 11.4 11.4 7.3 13.7 13.7 7.8 8.9 8.9 8.9 8.9 8.9 8.9 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 11.4 11.4 7.3 13.7 13.7 7.8 8.9 8.9 8.9 8.9 8.9 8.9 LOS by Move: B B A B B A A A A A A A ApproachDel: 11.3 12.3 8.9 8.9 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 11.3 12.3 8.9 8.9 LOS by Appr: B B A A AllWayAvgQ: 0.6 0.6 0.0 1.2 1.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to PMC, TORRANCE ---PAGE BREAK--- Existing+Project AM Wed Nov 11, 2009 15:37:08 Page 4-1 City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #3 Richmond St / Potrero Av Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.338 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 13.9 Optimal Cycle: 22 Level Of Service: B Street Name: Richmond St Potrero Av Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 Volume Module: Count Date: 21 Oct 2009 Base Vol: 42 201 10 19 330 50 28 117 62 15 150 22 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 42 201 10 19 330 50 28 117 62 15 150 22 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 42 201 10 19 332 50 28 117 62 15 150 22 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 42 201 10 19 332 50 28 117 62 15 150 22 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 42 201 10 19 332 50 28 117 62 15 150 22 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 42 201 10 19 332 50 28 117 62 15 150 22 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.96 0.96 0.96 Lanes: 0.17 0.79 0.04 0.05 0.83 0.12 0.14 0.56 0.30 0.08 0.80 0.12 Final Sat.: 283 1355 67 87 1520 229 235 981 [PHONE REDACTED] 214 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.10 0.10 0.10 Crit Moves: Green/Cycle: 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 Volume/Cap: 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.29 0.29 0.29 Uniform Del: 7.3 7.3 7.3 8.0 8.0 8.0 23.8 23.8 23.8 23.3 23.3 23.3 IncremntDel: 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 7.4 7.4 7.4 8.1 8.1 8.1 24.1 24.1 24.1 23.6 23.6 23.6 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 7.4 7.4 7.4 8.1 8.1 8.1 24.1 24.1 24.1 23.6 23.6 23.6 LOS by Move: A A A A A A C C C C C C HCM2kAvgQ: 3 3 3 6 6 6 5 5 5 4 4 4 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to PMC, TORRANCE ---PAGE BREAK--- Existing +Project PM Wed Nov 11, 2009 15:37:10 Page 2-1 City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #1 Elm St / Hill St / Key Bl Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.299 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 22.3 Optimal Cycle: 33 Level Of Service: C Street Name: Elm St Hill St / Key Bl Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Split Phase Split Phase Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 266 136 0 0 120 10 157 0 162 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 266 136 0 0 120 10 157 0 162 0 0 0 Added Vol: 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 267 137 0 0 121 10 157 0 164 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 267 137 0 0 121 10 157 0 164 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 267 137 0 0 121 10 157 0 164 0 0 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 267 137 0 0 121 10 157 0 164 0 0 0 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1805 1900 0 0 1900 1615 1805 0 2842 0 0 0 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.15 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crit Moves: Green/Cycle: 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.21 0.29 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.30 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.03 0.30 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Del: 14.9 13.7 0.0 0.0 33.1 31.1 27.5 0.0 26.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 IncremntDel: 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Delay/Veh: 15.1 13.8 0.0 0.0 33.5 31.2 27.8 0.0 26.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 15.1 13.8 0.0 0.0 33.5 31.2 27.8 0.0 26.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 LOS by Move: B B A A C C C A C A A A HCM2kAvgQ: 5 2 0 0 3 0 4 0 2 0 0 0 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to PMC, TORRANCE ---PAGE BREAK--- Existing +Project PM Wed Nov 11, 2009 15:37:10 Page 3-1 City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #2 Elm St / Richmond St / Blake St Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.519 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 11.4 Optimal Cycle: 0 Level Of Service: B Street Name: Elm St / Richmond St Blake St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 Volume Module: Count Date: 21 Oct 2009 Base Vol: 16 346 17 74 186 28 28 11 21 12 9 27 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 16 346 17 74 186 28 28 11 21 12 9 27 Added Vol: 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 16 348 17 74 187 28 28 11 21 12 9 27 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 16 348 17 74 187 28 28 11 21 12 9 27 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 16 348 17 74 187 28 28 11 21 12 9 27 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 16 348 17 74 187 28 28 11 21 12 9 27 Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.04 0.96 1.00 0.28 0.72 1.00 0.47 0.18 0.35 0.25 0.19 0.56 Final Sat.: 31 670 811 191 483 795 279 110 209 153 114 343 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.52 0.52 0.02 0.39 0.39 0.04 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.08 0.08 0.08 Crit Moves: Delay/Veh: 13.0 13.0 7.1 11.1 11.1 7.3 9.0 9.0 9.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 13.0 13.0 7.1 11.1 11.1 7.3 9.0 9.0 9.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 LOS by Move: B B A B B A A A A A A A ApproachDel: 12.7 10.8 9.0 8.7 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 12.7 10.8 9.0 8.7 LOS by Appr: B B A A AllWayAvgQ: 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to PMC, TORRANCE ---PAGE BREAK--- Existing +Project PM Wed Nov 11, 2009 15:37:10 Page 4-1 City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #3 Richmond St / Potrero Av Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.383 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 13.6 Optimal Cycle: 23 Level Of Service: B Street Name: Richmond St Potrero Av Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 65 336 31 9 158 35 47 112 69 16 90 12 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 65 336 31 9 158 35 47 112 69 16 90 12 Added Vol: 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 65 338 31 9 159 35 47 112 69 16 90 12 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 65 338 31 9 159 35 47 112 69 16 90 12 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 65 338 31 9 159 35 47 112 69 16 90 12 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 65 338 31 9 159 35 47 112 69 16 90 12 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.94 0.94 0.94 Lanes: 0.15 0.78 0.07 0.04 0.79 0.17 0.21 0.49 0.30 0.14 0.76 0.10 Final Sat.: 262 1362 125 81 1429 315 349 831 [PHONE REDACTED] 182 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.07 0.07 0.07 Crit Moves: Green/Cycle: 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 Volume/Cap: 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.19 0.19 0.19 Uniform Del: 8.2 8.2 8.2 7.0 7.0 7.0 24.3 24.3 24.3 22.5 22.5 22.5 IncremntDel: 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 8.5 8.5 8.5 7.0 7.0 7.0 24.7 24.7 24.7 22.6 22.6 22.6 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 8.5 8.5 8.5 7.0 7.0 7.0 24.7 24.7 24.7 22.6 22.6 22.6 LOS by Move: A A A A A A C C C C C C HCM2kAvgQ: 6 6 6 2 2 2 5 5 5 3 3 3 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to PMC, TORRANCE ---PAGE BREAK--- Cumulative AM Wed Nov 11, 2009 15:37:13 Page 2-1 City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #1 Elm St / Hill St / Key Bl Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.370 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 27.6 Optimal Cycle: 36 Level Of Service: C Street Name: Elm St Hill St / Key Bl Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Split Phase Split Phase Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1! 0 0 Volume Module: Count Date: 21 Oct 2009 Base Vol: 176 148 0 0 207 7 149 0 317 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 Initial Bse: 191 160 0 0 224 8 161 0 343 0 0 0 Added Vol: 3 1 20 8 21 0 12 12 8 16 10 6 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 194 161 20 8 245 8 173 12 351 16 10 6 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 194 161 20 8 245 8 173 12 351 16 10 6 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 194 161 20 8 245 8 173 12 351 16 10 6 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 194 161 20 8 245 8 173 12 351 16 10 6 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.98 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.95 0.95 0.95 Lanes: 1.00 0.89 0.11 0.03 0.97 1.00 0.97 0.07 1.96 0.50 0.31 0.19 Final Sat.: 1805 1663 206 60 1836 1615 1553 107 3146 904 565 339 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.02 0.02 0.02 Crit Moves: Green/Cycle: 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.05 0.05 0.05 Volume/Cap: 0.37 0.33 0.33 0.37 0.37 0.01 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 Uniform Del: 28.3 27.9 27.9 23.6 23.6 20.5 27.4 27.4 27.4 46.1 46.1 46.1 IncremntDel: 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 2.7 2.7 2.7 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 28.7 28.3 28.3 23.9 23.9 20.5 27.6 27.6 27.6 48.8 48.8 48.8 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 28.7 28.3 28.3 23.9 23.9 20.5 27.6 27.6 27.6 48.8 48.8 48.8 LOS by Move: C C C C C C C C C D D D HCM2kAvgQ: 5 4 4 6 6 0 5 5 5 1 1 1 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to PMC, TORRANCE ---PAGE BREAK--- Cumulative AM Wed Nov 11, 2009 15:37:13 Page 3-1 City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #2 Elm St / Richmond St / Blake St Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.643 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 13.4 Optimal Cycle: 0 Level Of Service: B Street Name: Elm St / Richmond St Blake St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 Volume Module: Count Date: 21 Oct 2009 Base Vol: 9 264 8 29 357 124 19 7 25 12 14 27 Growth Adj: 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 Initial Bse: 10 286 9 31 387 134 21 8 27 13 15 29 Added Vol: 10 17 0 2 19 24 5 2 1 0 3 3 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 20 303 9 33 406 158 26 10 28 13 18 32 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 20 303 9 33 406 158 26 10 28 13 18 32 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 20 303 9 33 406 158 26 10 28 13 18 32 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 20 303 9 33 406 158 26 10 28 13 18 32 Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.06 0.94 1.00 0.08 0.92 1.00 0.40 0.15 0.45 0.20 0.29 0.51 Final Sat.: 40 607 735 52 631 789 224 84 246 115 161 286 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.50 0.50 0.01 0.64 0.64 0.20 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Crit Moves: Delay/Veh: 13.3 13.3 7.5 16.6 16.6 8.3 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.4 9.4 9.4 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 13.3 13.3 7.5 16.6 16.6 8.3 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.4 9.4 9.4 LOS by Move: B B A C C A A A A A A A ApproachDel: 13.1 14.4 9.5 9.4 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 13.1 14.4 9.5 9.4 LOS by Appr: B B A A AllWayAvgQ: 0.9 0.9 0.0 1.6 1.6 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to PMC, TORRANCE ---PAGE BREAK--- Cumulative AM Wed Nov 11, 2009 15:37:13 Page 4-1 City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #3 Richmond St / Potrero Av Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.381 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 14.1 Optimal Cycle: 23 Level Of Service: B Street Name: Richmond St Potrero Av Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 Volume Module: Count Date: 21 Oct 2009 Base Vol: 42 201 10 19 330 50 28 117 62 15 150 22 Growth Adj: 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 Initial Bse: 45 218 11 21 357 54 30 127 67 16 162 24 Added Vol: 4 22 0 2 16 2 2 1 3 0 1 3 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 49 240 11 23 373 56 32 128 70 16 163 27 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 49 240 11 23 373 56 32 128 70 16 163 27 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 49 240 11 23 373 56 32 128 70 16 163 27 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 49 240 11 23 373 56 32 128 70 16 163 27 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.96 0.96 0.96 Lanes: 0.16 0.80 0.04 0.05 0.83 0.12 0.14 0.56 0.30 0.08 0.79 0.13 Final Sat.: 277 1343 61 91 1509 227 242 955 [PHONE REDACTED] 236 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.11 0.11 0.11 Crit Moves: Green/Cycle: 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 Volume/Cap: 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.32 0.32 0.32 Uniform Del: 7.5 7.5 7.5 8.2 8.2 8.2 24.3 24.3 24.3 23.8 23.8 23.8 IncremntDel: 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 7.6 7.6 7.6 8.4 8.4 8.4 24.7 24.7 24.7 24.1 24.1 24.1 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 7.6 7.6 7.6 8.4 8.4 8.4 24.7 24.7 24.7 24.1 24.1 24.1 LOS by Move: A A A A A A C C C C C C HCM2kAvgQ: 4 4 4 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to PMC, TORRANCE ---PAGE BREAK--- Cumulative PM Wed Nov 11, 2009 15:37:15 Page 2-1 City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #1 Elm St / Hill St / Key Bl Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.414 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 25.7 Optimal Cycle: 39 Level Of Service: C Street Name: Elm St Hill St / Key Bl Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Split Phase Split Phase Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1! 0 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 266 136 0 0 120 10 157 0 162 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 Initial Bse: 288 147 0 0 130 11 170 0 175 0 0 0 Added Vol: 8 6 12 5 57 0 50 7 31 13 8 5 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 296 153 12 5 187 11 220 7 206 13 8 5 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 296 153 12 5 187 11 220 7 206 13 8 5 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 296 153 12 5 187 11 220 7 206 13 8 5 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 296 153 12 5 187 11 220 7 206 13 8 5 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.95 0.95 0.95 Lanes: 1.00 0.93 0.07 0.03 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.07 1.93 0.50 0.31 0.19 Final Sat.: 1805 1743 136 49 1849 1615 1635 107 3163 903 556 347 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.16 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.01 0.13 0.07 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.01 Crit Moves: Green/Cycle: 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.03 0.03 0.03 Volume/Cap: 0.41 0.22 0.22 0.41 0.41 0.03 0.41 0.20 0.20 0.41 0.41 0.41 Uniform Del: 21.8 20.0 20.0 31.8 31.8 28.8 26.3 24.4 24.4 47.3 47.3 47.3 IncremntDel: 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 4.4 4.4 4.4 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 22.2 20.1 20.1 32.4 32.4 28.8 26.6 24.4 24.4 51.7 51.7 51.7 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 22.2 20.1 20.1 32.4 32.4 28.8 26.6 24.4 24.4 51.7 51.7 51.7 LOS by Move: C C C C C C C C C D D D HCM2kAvgQ: 7 3 3 5 5 0 6 3 3 1 1 1 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to PMC, TORRANCE ---PAGE BREAK--- Cumulative PM Wed Nov 11, 2009 15:37:15 Page 3-1 City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #2 Elm St / Richmond St / Blake St Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.658 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 14.0 Optimal Cycle: 0 Level Of Service: B Street Name: Elm St / Richmond St Blake St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 Volume Module: Count Date: 21 Oct 2009 Base Vol: 16 346 17 74 186 28 28 11 21 12 9 27 Growth Adj: 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 Initial Bse: 17 375 18 80 201 30 30 12 23 13 10 29 Added Vol: 27 14 0 4 38 59 7 8 3 0 8 4 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 44 389 18 84 239 89 37 20 26 13 18 33 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 44 389 18 84 239 89 37 20 26 13 18 33 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 44 389 18 84 239 89 37 20 26 13 18 33 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 44 389 18 84 239 89 37 20 26 13 18 33 Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.10 0.90 1.00 0.26 0.74 1.00 0.45 0.24 0.31 0.20 0.28 0.52 Final Sat.: 67 591 755 167 476 750 245 131 169 111 152 285 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.66 0.66 0.02 0.50 0.50 0.12 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.12 0.12 0.12 Crit Moves: Delay/Veh: 17.5 17.5 7.5 13.4 13.4 8.0 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.5 9.5 9.5 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 17.5 17.5 7.5 13.4 13.4 8.0 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.5 9.5 9.5 LOS by Move: C C A B B A A A A A A A ApproachDel: 17.1 12.3 9.9 9.5 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 17.1 12.3 9.9 9.5 LOS by Appr: C B A A AllWayAvgQ: 1.7 1.7 0.0 0.9 0.9 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to PMC, TORRANCE ---PAGE BREAK--- Cumulative PM Wed Nov 11, 2009 15:37:15 Page 4-1 City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #3 Richmond St / Potrero Av Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.455 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 13.9 Optimal Cycle: 26 Level Of Service: B Street Name: Richmond St Potrero Av Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 65 336 31 9 158 35 47 112 69 16 90 12 Growth Adj: 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 Initial Bse: 70 364 34 10 171 38 51 121 75 17 97 13 Added Vol: 11 34 0 6 34 1 1 2 11 0 2 6 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 81 398 34 16 205 39 52 123 86 17 99 19 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 81 398 34 16 205 39 52 123 86 17 99 19 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 81 398 34 16 205 39 52 123 86 17 99 19 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 81 398 34 16 205 39 52 123 86 17 99 19 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.94 0.94 0.94 Lanes: 0.16 0.78 0.06 0.06 0.79 0.15 0.20 0.47 0.33 0.13 0.73 0.14 Final Sat.: 272 1329 [PHONE REDACTED] 270 334 794 [PHONE REDACTED] 249 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.08 0.08 0.08 Crit Moves: Green/Cycle: 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 Volume/Cap: 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.22 0.22 0.22 Uniform Del: 8.3 8.3 8.3 6.8 6.8 6.8 25.7 25.7 25.7 23.5 23.5 23.5 IncremntDel: 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.2 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 8.6 8.6 8.6 6.9 6.9 6.9 26.2 26.2 26.2 23.7 23.7 23.7 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 8.6 8.6 8.6 6.9 6.9 6.9 26.2 26.2 26.2 23.7 23.7 23.7 LOS by Move: A A A A A A C C C C C C HCM2kAvgQ: 8 8 8 3 3 3 6 6 6 3 3 3 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to PMC, TORRANCE ---PAGE BREAK--- Cumulative+Project AM Wed Nov 11, 2009 15:37:18 Page 2-1 City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #1 Elm St / Hill St / Key Bl Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.371 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 27.6 Optimal Cycle: 36 Level Of Service: C Street Name: Elm St Hill St / Key Bl Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Split Phase Split Phase Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1! 0 0 Volume Module: Count Date: 21 Oct 2009 Base Vol: 176 148 0 0 207 7 149 0 317 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 Initial Bse: 191 160 0 0 224 8 161 0 343 0 0 0 Added Vol: 5 2 20 8 21 0 12 12 8 16 10 6 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 196 162 20 8 245 8 173 12 351 16 10 6 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 196 162 20 8 245 8 173 12 351 16 10 6 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 196 162 20 8 245 8 173 12 351 16 10 6 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 196 162 20 8 245 8 173 12 351 16 10 6 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.98 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.95 0.95 0.95 Lanes: 1.00 0.89 0.11 0.03 0.97 1.00 0.97 0.07 1.96 0.50 0.31 0.19 Final Sat.: 1805 1664 205 60 1836 1615 1553 107 3146 904 565 339 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.02 0.02 0.02 Crit Moves: Green/Cycle: 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.05 0.05 0.05 Volume/Cap: 0.37 0.33 0.33 0.37 0.37 0.01 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 Uniform Del: 28.1 27.8 27.8 23.7 23.7 20.6 27.5 27.5 27.5 46.2 46.2 46.2 IncremntDel: 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 2.7 2.7 2.7 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 28.6 28.1 28.1 24.0 24.0 20.6 27.7 27.7 27.7 48.9 48.9 48.9 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 28.6 28.1 28.1 24.0 24.0 20.6 27.7 27.7 27.7 48.9 48.9 48.9 LOS by Move: C C C C C C C C C D D D HCM2kAvgQ: 5 4 4 6 6 0 5 5 5 1 1 1 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to PMC, TORRANCE ---PAGE BREAK--- Cumulative+Project AM Wed Nov 11, 2009 15:37:18 Page 3-1 City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #2 Elm St / Richmond St / Blake St Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.646 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 13.4 Optimal Cycle: 0 Level Of Service: B Street Name: Elm St / Richmond St Blake St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 Volume Module: Count Date: 21 Oct 2009 Base Vol: 9 264 8 29 357 124 19 7 25 12 14 27 Growth Adj: 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 Initial Bse: 10 286 9 31 387 134 21 8 27 13 15 29 Added Vol: 10 17 0 2 21 24 5 2 1 0 3 3 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 20 303 9 33 408 158 26 10 28 13 18 32 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 20 303 9 33 408 158 26 10 28 13 18 32 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 20 303 9 33 408 158 26 10 28 13 18 32 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 20 303 9 33 408 158 26 10 28 13 18 32 Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.06 0.94 1.00 0.08 0.92 1.00 0.40 0.15 0.45 0.20 0.29 0.51 Final Sat.: 40 606 734 52 631 789 224 84 246 115 161 285 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.50 0.50 0.01 0.65 0.65 0.20 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Crit Moves: Delay/Veh: 13.3 13.3 7.5 16.7 16.7 8.3 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.4 9.4 9.4 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 13.3 13.3 7.5 16.7 16.7 8.3 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.4 9.4 9.4 LOS by Move: B B A C C A A A A A A A ApproachDel: 13.1 14.5 9.5 9.4 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 13.1 14.5 9.5 9.4 LOS by Appr: B B A A AllWayAvgQ: 0.9 0.9 0.0 1.7 1.7 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to PMC, TORRANCE ---PAGE BREAK--- Cumulative+Project AM Wed Nov 11, 2009 15:37:18 Page 4-1 City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #3 Richmond St / Potrero Av Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.382 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 14.1 Optimal Cycle: 23 Level Of Service: B Street Name: Richmond St Potrero Av Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 Volume Module: Count Date: 21 Oct 2009 Base Vol: 42 201 10 19 330 50 28 117 62 15 150 22 Growth Adj: 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 Initial Bse: 45 218 11 21 357 54 30 127 67 16 162 24 Added Vol: 4 23 0 2 18 2 2 1 3 0 1 3 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 49 241 11 23 375 56 32 128 70 16 163 27 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 49 241 11 23 375 56 32 128 70 16 163 27 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 49 241 11 23 375 56 32 128 70 16 163 27 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 49 241 11 23 375 56 32 128 70 16 163 27 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.96 0.96 0.96 Lanes: 0.16 0.80 0.04 0.05 0.83 0.12 0.14 0.56 0.30 0.08 0.79 0.13 Final Sat.: 276 1344 60 91 1510 226 242 955 [PHONE REDACTED] 236 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.11 0.11 0.11 Crit Moves: Green/Cycle: 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 Volume/Cap: 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.33 0.33 0.33 Uniform Del: 7.4 7.4 7.4 8.1 8.1 8.1 24.4 24.4 24.4 23.9 23.9 23.9 IncremntDel: 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 7.6 7.6 7.6 8.3 8.3 8.3 24.8 24.8 24.8 24.2 24.2 24.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 7.6 7.6 7.6 8.3 8.3 8.3 24.8 24.8 24.8 24.2 24.2 24.2 LOS by Move: A A A A A A C C C C C C HCM2kAvgQ: 4 4 4 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to PMC, TORRANCE ---PAGE BREAK--- Cumulative+Project PM Wed Nov 11, 2009 15:37:21 Page 2-1 City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #1 Elm St / Hill St / Key Bl Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.415 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 25.7 Optimal Cycle: 39 Level Of Service: C Street Name: Elm St Hill St / Key Bl Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Split Phase Split Phase Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1! 0 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 266 136 0 0 120 10 157 0 162 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 Initial Bse: 288 147 0 0 130 11 170 0 175 0 0 0 Added Vol: 9 6 12 5 58 0 50 7 33 13 8 5 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 297 153 12 5 188 11 220 7 208 13 8 5 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 297 153 12 5 188 11 220 7 208 13 8 5 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 297 153 12 5 188 11 220 7 208 13 8 5 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 297 153 12 5 188 11 220 7 208 13 8 5 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.95 0.95 0.95 Lanes: 1.00 0.93 0.07 0.03 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.06 1.94 0.50 0.31 0.19 Final Sat.: 1805 1743 136 49 1849 1615 1633 106 3160 903 556 347 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.16 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.01 0.13 0.07 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.01 Crit Moves: Green/Cycle: 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.03 0.03 0.03 Volume/Cap: 0.42 0.22 0.22 0.42 0.42 0.03 0.42 0.20 0.20 0.42 0.42 0.42 Uniform Del: 21.8 20.0 20.0 31.7 31.7 28.7 26.4 24.4 24.4 47.3 47.3 47.3 IncremntDel: 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 4.4 4.4 4.4 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 22.2 20.1 20.1 32.4 32.4 28.7 26.6 24.5 24.5 51.7 51.7 51.7 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 22.2 20.1 20.1 32.4 32.4 28.7 26.6 24.5 24.5 51.7 51.7 51.7 LOS by Move: C C C C C C C C C D D D HCM2kAvgQ: 7 3 3 5 5 0 6 3 3 1 1 1 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to PMC, TORRANCE ---PAGE BREAK--- Cumulative+Project PM Wed Nov 11, 2009 15:37:21 Page 3-1 City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #2 Elm St / Richmond St / Blake St Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.660 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 14.1 Optimal Cycle: 0 Level Of Service: B Street Name: Elm St / Richmond St Blake St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 Volume Module: Count Date: 21 Oct 2009 Base Vol: 16 346 17 74 186 28 28 11 21 12 9 27 Growth Adj: 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 Initial Bse: 17 375 18 80 201 30 30 12 23 13 10 29 Added Vol: 27 15 0 4 39 59 8 8 3 0 8 5 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 44 390 18 84 240 89 38 20 26 13 18 34 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 44 390 18 84 240 89 38 20 26 13 18 34 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 44 390 18 84 240 89 38 20 26 13 18 34 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 44 390 18 84 240 89 38 20 26 13 18 34 Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.10 0.90 1.00 0.26 0.74 1.00 0.45 0.24 0.31 0.20 0.27 0.53 Final Sat.: 67 590 754 167 476 747 248 129 166 110 150 289 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.66 0.66 0.02 0.51 0.51 0.12 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.12 0.12 0.12 Crit Moves: Delay/Veh: 17.6 17.6 7.5 13.5 13.5 8.0 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.5 9.5 9.5 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 17.6 17.6 7.5 13.5 13.5 8.0 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.5 9.5 9.5 LOS by Move: C C A B B A A A A A A A ApproachDel: 17.2 12.3 9.9 9.5 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 17.2 12.3 9.9 9.5 LOS by Appr: C B A A AllWayAvgQ: 1.7 1.7 0.0 0.9 0.9 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to PMC, TORRANCE ---PAGE BREAK--- Cumulative+Project PM Wed Nov 11, 2009 15:37:21 Page 4-1 City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #3 Richmond St / Potrero Av Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.455 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 13.9 Optimal Cycle: 26 Level Of Service: B Street Name: Richmond St Potrero Av Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 65 336 31 9 158 35 47 112 69 16 90 12 Growth Adj: 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 Initial Bse: 70 364 34 10 171 38 51 121 75 17 97 13 Added Vol: 11 36 0 6 35 1 1 2 11 0 2 6 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 81 400 34 16 206 39 52 123 86 17 99 19 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 81 400 34 16 206 39 52 123 86 17 99 19 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 81 400 34 16 206 39 52 123 86 17 99 19 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 81 400 34 16 206 39 52 123 86 17 99 19 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.94 0.94 0.94 Lanes: 0.16 0.78 0.06 0.06 0.79 0.15 0.20 0.47 0.33 0.13 0.73 0.14 Final Sat.: 271 1332 [PHONE REDACTED] 269 334 794 [PHONE REDACTED] 249 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.08 0.08 0.08 Crit Moves: Green/Cycle: 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 Volume/Cap: 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.22 0.22 0.22 Uniform Del: 8.3 8.3 8.3 6.8 6.8 6.8 25.7 25.7 25.7 23.5 23.5 23.5 IncremntDel: 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.2 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 8.6 8.6 8.6 6.9 6.9 6.9 26.3 26.3 26.3 23.7 23.7 23.7 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 8.6 8.6 8.6 6.9 6.9 6.9 26.3 26.3 26.3 23.7 23.7 23.7 LOS by Move: A A A A A A C C C C C C HCM2kAvgQ: 8 8 8 3 3 3 6 6 6 3 3 3 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to PMC, TORRANCE ---PAGE BREAK--- 1 CEQA Mitigation Monitoring Plan 1715 Elm Street INTRODUCTION The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires review of any project that could have significant adverse effects on the environment. In 1988, CEQA was amended to require reporting on and monitoring of mitigation measures adopted as part of the environmental review process. This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) is designed to aid the City of El Cerrito in its implementation and monitoring of measures included in the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project located at 1715 Elm Street. MITIGATION MEASURES The MMRP describes the actions that must take place to implement each mitigation measure, the timing of those actions, and the entities responsible for monitoring the actions. MMRP COMPONENTS The components of each monitoring form are addressed briefly, below. Mitigation Measure: All mitigation measures that were identified in the 1715 Elm Street Initial Study are presented and numbered accordingly. Timing/Implementation: Each action must take place prior to the time at which a threshold could be exceeded. Implementation of the action must occur prior to or during some part of approval, project design or construction or on an ongoing basis. The timing for each measure is identified. Within the City of El Cerrito, the responsibility for implementation of the measures would lie with the Planning and Building Division. Enforcement/Monitoring Party: The City of El Cerrito is responsible for ensuring that mitigation measures are successfully implemented. Air Quality Mitigations AQ-1 To adequately control dust, the project applicant shall ensure construction contracts contain requirements for implementing the BAAQMD’s basic construction mitigation measures from Table 8-1 of the BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines. Construction contracts shall also contain the following measures in order to reduce the emissions of toxic pollutants generated by heavy-duty diesel powered equipment during construction. 1. Keep all construction equipment in proper tune in accordance with manufacturers’ specifications. 2. Use late-model heavy-duty diesel-powered equipment during construction to the extent that it is readily available in the San Francisco Bay Area. 3. Use diesel-powered equipment that has been retrofitted with after-treatment products engine to the extent that it is readily available in the ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 San Francisco Bay Area. 4. Use low-emission diesel fuel for all heavy-duty diesel-powered equipment operating and refueling at construction sites to the extent that it is readily available and cost effective in the San Francisco Bay Area. (This requirement does not apply to diesel-powered trucks traveling to and from the site.) 5. Utilize alternative-fuel construction equipment compressed natural gas, liquid petroleum gas, and unleaded gasoline) to the extent that the equipment is readily available and cost effective in the San Francisco Bay Area. 6. Limit truck and equipment idling time to 5 minutes or less. 7. Rely on the electricity infrastructure surrounding the construction site rather than electrical generators powered by internal combustion engines to the extent feasible. Timing/Implementation: Prior to construction Enforcement/Monitoring: City of El Cerrito Planning Division Biological Mitigations BIO-1 Survey for Migratory Birds. If clearing and/or construction activities will occur during the migratory bird nesting season (April 15–August 15), preconstruction surveys for nesting migratory birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist, up to 14 days before initiation of construction activities. The qualified biologist shall survey the construction zone and a 250-foot radius surrounding the construction zone to determine whether the activities taking place have the potential to disturb or otherwise harm nesting birds. If active nest(s) are identified during the preconstruction survey, a qualified biologist shall monitor the nest to determine when the young have fledged. monitoring reports, documenting nest status, shall be submitted to the City Planning Division until the nest(s) is deemed inactive. The biological monitor shall have the authority to cease construction if there is any sign of distress to a raptor or migratory bird. Reference to this requirement and to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act shall be included in the construction specifications. Timing/Implementation: Prior to construction Enforcement/Monitoring: City of El Cerrito Planning Division BIO-2 Survey for Active Raptor Nests. If construction activities will occur during the nesting season for raptors (January 15–August 15), all suitable raptor nesting habitat within 0.5 mile of the impacted area shall be surveyed for active raptor nests before construction activity commences. If an active raptor nest is located within 0.5 mile of the construction site, a no-activity buffer shall be erected around the nest while the nest is active to protect the nesting raptors. This buffer distance may be amended to account for nests that are not within the line of sight of the construction activity. Timing/Implementation: Prior to construction Enforcement/Monitoring: City of El Cerrito Planning Division BIO-3 Conduct Surveys for Bird Nests in Structures. If demolition of on-site structures is proposed to take place during the migratory bird nesting season (April 15–August 15), a survey for nesting migratory birds swallows, phoebes) shall be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to demolition. If bird nests are discovered in the structure, the structure shall not be removed until the nest(s) become inactive. Timing/Implementation: Prior to demolition Enforcement/Monitoring: City of El Cerrito Planning Division ---PAGE BREAK--- 3 BIO-4 Conduct Surveys for Potential Bat Roosts. Demolition of on-site structures shall be preceded by a survey for bat presence. Structures being used by bats will not be removed until it has been determined that bats are no longer using the site or until demolition can be carried out without harming any bats. Timing/Implementation: Prior to demolition Enforcement/Monitoring: City of El Cerrito Planning Division BIO-5 Mitigate for Loss of Waters of the United States. If the US Army Corps of Engineers identifies that the feature is jurisdictional, the project applicant shall ensure that the project will result in no net loss of waters of the United States by providing mitigation through impact avoidance, impact minimization, and/or compensatory mitigation for the impact, as determined in the CWA Section 404/401 permits and/or 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement. Timing/Implementation: Prior to construction Enforcement/Monitoring: City of El Cerrito Planning Division Cultural Resource Mitigations CULT-1 Prior to any alterations of structures on the project site, the project applicant shall complete Historic American Building Survey (HABS) level documentation. Prior to occupancy of any structure on the project site, the applicant shall complete façade restoration, and salvage and reuse building materials and landscape features, as discussed below. a) The project applicant shall document the affected historical resource and its setting, in accordance with HABS. The intent is to preserve an accurate record of historic property that can be used in research and other preservation activities. To serve these purposes, the documentation must include information that permits assessment of its reliability. Generally, this includes: • Drawings: Select existing drawings, where available, should be photographed with large-format negatives or photographically reproduced on Mylar. • Photographs: Photographs with large-format negatives of exterior and interior views, or historic views, where available. • Written data: History and description in narrative or outline format. HABS material standards regarding reproducibility, durability, and size shall be met. Copies of the photographs and report shall be presented to repositories that are invested in archiving the history of El Cerrito. b) Restore the building façade, including windows, the historic wood trim around the doors and windows on the primary façade, and the door in the main entrance, as determined by documentation by either physical and/or documentary evidence to the extent documentation is available. If physical evidence is inconclusive or historic photographs are not available, comparable, intact properties built during the same period as the Rodoni house may be used to inform the appearance of the façade. Timing/Implementation: Prior to construction or demolition activities Enforcement/Monitoring: City of El Cerrito Planning Division CULT-2 In the event any archeological resources are encountered during construction, work within 100 feet of the find shall cease and a qualified paleontologist shall be contacted by the project applicant to determine whether the resource is significant. If the find is determined to be of significance, an excavation plan shall be created and resources shall be donated to an appropriate cultural center. All work products and plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to execution. Timing/Implementation: During construction ---PAGE BREAK--- 4 Enforcement/Monitoring: City of El Cerrito Planning Division CULT-3 In the event paleontological resources are encountered during construction, the construction manager shall cease operation at the site of the discovery and immediately notify the City of El Cerrito Environmental & Development Services Department. The project applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist to provide an evaluation of the find and to prescribe mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. In considering any suggested mitigation proposed by the consulting paleontologist, the City of El Cerrito Environmental & Development Services Department shall determine whether avoidance is necessary and feasible in light of factors such as the nature of the find, project design, costs, and other considerations. If avoidance is unnecessary or infeasible, other appropriate measures data recovery) shall be instituted. Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while mitigation for paleontological resources is carried out. Timing/Implementation: During construction Enforcement/Monitoring: City of El Cerrito Planning Division CULT-4 If human remains are encountered during project construction, work within 100 feet of the remains shall be suspended immediately, and the City of El Cerrito Environmental & Development Services Department and the Contra Costa County Coroner shall be immediately notified. If the remains are determined by the County Coroner to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) shall be notified within 24 hours. A professional archaeologist with Native American burial experience shall conduct a field investigation of the specific site and consult with the Most Likely Descendant, if any, identified by the NAHC. As necessary, the archaeologist may provide professional assistance to the Most Likely Descendant, including the excavation and removal of the human remains. The City of El Cerrito Environmental & Development Services Department will be responsible for the approval of recommended mitigation, taking account of the provisions of state law, as set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e) and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The project applicant shall implement the approved mitigation, to be verified by the City of El Cerrito Environmental & Development Services Department, before the resumption of activities at the site where the remains were discovered. Timing/Implementation: During construction Enforcement/Monitoring: City of El Cerrito Planning Division GHG-1 Prior to issuance of grading or building permits, the project applicant shall specify on the final project plans implementation of BAAQMD-recommended construction-related measures to reduce GHG emissions during construction activities. These measures include, as feasible: 1. Use alternative-fueled biodiesel, electric) construction vehicles and equipment to the maximum extent possible. 2. Use local construction materials (within 100 miles) to the maximum extent possible. 3. Recycle construction waste and demolition materials to the maximum extent possible. Timing/Implementation: Prior to grading permits Enforcement/Monitoring: City of El Cerrito Planning Division ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6 Attachment 2 1 RESOLUTION 2014–XX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EL CERRITO APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AT 1715 ELM STREET. WHEREAS, the subject site is located at 1715 Elm Street; and WHEREAS, the zoning district of the site is RM (Multifamily Residential); and WHEREAS, the general plan land use designation of the site is High Density; and WHEREAS, on January 13, 2014 the City circulated an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declarations pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, at its March 19, 2014 meeting, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing, received public testimony and directed staff to bring the project back for formal action; and WHEREAS, at its April 16, 2014 meeting, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing, received public testimony and adopted Resolution PC14-06, adopting an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, at its April 16, 2014 meeting, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing, received public testimony and adopted Resolution PC14-07, approving a Planned Development Use Permit; and WHEREAS, at its May 21, 2014 meeting, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing, received public testimony and adopted Resolution PC14-10, recommending denial of Planned Development District, General Plan Amendment and Development Agreement; and WHEREAS, on June 2, 2014, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider a General Plan Amendment; and WHEREAS, based upon the evidence presented in the record on this matter, including the staff report and oral and written testimony and the proceedings before the Planning Commission, the Council has considered General Plan Amendment. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: The City Council of the City of El Cerrito finds that: 1. The proposed residential project will be a transit oriented development (TOD) located within 800 feet of a BART station (1,400 feet by foot). It will add 13 new dwelling units while preserving a historic dwelling and retain an existing creek. The balance of all these core values on the site is considered to be in the public interest. ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6 Attachment 2 2 2. The project is consistent with the purposes of the district and conforms in all significant respects with the General Plan as conditioned; in that it consists of high density multifamily development that utilizes good urban design principles including reduced parking requirements, parking concealed under the new building, and a mix of unit types. It also preserves an important historic resource and protects an existing creek by including it within its landscaped area. The project will implement the following General Plan goals and policies: Land Use 1.2: Multifamily Neighborhoods, Land Use, 1.3: Quality of Development, Land Use 1.5: Suitable Housing, Land Use 1.6: Variety of Housing Types, Land Use 5.1 BART Station Areas, Community Design 1.3: High-Quality Design, Community Design 1.9: Building Design, Community Design 4.2: Building Articulation, Community Design 5.1: Design Review Process, Community Design 5.2 Planned Development. Community Design 3.5 Creek Preservation. Resources 1.9 Developments near Creeks, Resources 2.1: Historic Preservation, Resources 2.5: Public Awareness. 3. The proposed residential project will be a transit oriented development with good urban design. It will add 14 new dwelling units to the neighborhood while preserving a historic structure and retaining the existing creek. It will not unduly shade surrounding dwellings or create unacceptable traffic or parking impacts; and as conditioned it will not be detrimental to the abutting properties or neighborhood. 4. An Initial Study and Mitigate Negative Declaration (MND) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) have been approved for this project. All factors are reduced to a less than significant level pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act with the implementation of mitigation measures. The Mitigation Monitoring Plan has been incorporated in the conditions of approval. After careful consideration of facts, correspondence, and testimony, and other evidence submitted in this matter, the El Cerrito City Council hereby approves the General Plan Amendment at 1715 Elm Street. I CERTIFY that at a regular meeting on June 2, 2014, the El Cerrito City Council passed this Resolution by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6 Attachment 2 3 IN WITNESS of this action, I sign this document and affix the corporate seal of the City of El Cerrito on June 2, 2014. Cheryl Morse, City Clerk APPROVED: Janet Abelson, Mayor ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6 Attachment 3 1 ORDINANCE 2014–XX AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EL CERRITO REZONING 1715 ELM STREET TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT – APPLICATION 6133 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EL CERRITO DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. RECITALS A. The Applicant, the Edward and Loretta Biggs Revocable Trust, proposes a development project that includes the relocation and renovation of an existing historical single-family detached house on the Property, the construction of 14 new one- and two-bedroom dwelling units, and the preservation of an existing creek on 0.42 acre site. The project proposes a General Plan Amendment to change the allowable density to 35.7 units per acre; Planned Development District; a Planned Development Use Permit; Design Review; a subdivision map and condominium plan; and this Development Agreement. The proposed development and applications are collectively known as the “Project”; related approvals of the applications are collectively known as the “Project Approvals.” B. The Project site is located at 1715 Elm Street in El Cerrito, California (the “Property”). C. The Applicant has applied to change the zoning of the Property to a Planned Development District subject to certain terms, attached to this ordinance, and to amend the City’s Zoning Map accordingly. D. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the state guidelines and City environmental regulations, require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared. E. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) have been prepared for this Project. All potential impacts identified are reduced to a less than significant level pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act with the implementation of mitigation measures. F. On April 16, 2014, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the Project, and adopted Resolution 14-07 recommending that the City Council adopt the Planned Development Use Permit, which Resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours. G. On May 21, 2014, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the Project, including the proposed General Plan Amendment, Planned Development District and Development Agreement, and adopted Resolution 14-10 recommending that the City Council ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6 Attachment 3 2 deny the General Plan Amendment, Planned Development District and Development Agreement, which Resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours. H. A Staff Report, dated June 2, 2014 and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the Project, including the Planned Development rezoning for the City Council. I. On June 2, 2014, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on the Project, including the proposed Planned Development rezoning at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard. J. On June 2, 2014, the City Council adopted Resolution xx-xx adopting an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project. K. The City Council considered the adopted Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration and all above-referenced reports, recommendations, and testimony prior to taking action on the Project. SECTION 2. FINDINGS A. Pursuant to Sections19.14.040.A and 19.40.040.D of the El Cerrito Municipal Code, the City Council finds as follows. 1. The proposed residential Project will be a transit oriented development located within 800 feet of a BART station (1,400 feet by foot). It will add thirteen new dwelling units while preserving a historic dwelling and retain an existing creek. The balance of all these core values on the site is considered to be in the public interest. 2. The project is consistent with the purposes of the district and conforms in all significant respects with the amended General Plan, as conditioned. in that it consists of high density multifamily development that utilizes good urban design principles including reduced parking requirements, parking concealed under the new building, and a mix of unit types. It also preserves an important historic resource and protects an existing creek by including it within its landscaped area. The project will implement the following General Plan goals and policies: Land Use 1.2: Multifamily Neighborhoods, Land Use, 1.3: Quality of Development, Land Use 1.5: Suitable Housing, Land Use 1.6: Variety of Housing Types, Land Use 5.1 BART Station Areas, Community Design 1.3: High-Quality Design, Community Design 1.9: Building Design, Community Design 4.2: Building Articulation, Community Design 5.1: Design Review Process, Community Design 5.2 Planned Development. Community Design 3.5 Creek Preservation. Resources 1.9 Developments near Creeks, Resources 2.1: Historic Preservation, Resources 2.5: Public Awareness. 3. The proposed residential project will be a transit oriented development with good urban design. It will add fourteen new dwelling units to the neighborhood while ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6 Attachment 3 3 preserving a historic structure and retaining the existing creek. It will not unduly shade surrounding dwellings or create unacceptable traffic or parking impacts; and as conditioned it will not be detrimental to the abutting properties or neighborhood. 4. An Initial Study and Mitigate Negative Declaration (MND) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) have been approved for this project. All factors are reduced to a less than significant level pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act with the implementation of mitigation measures. The Mitigation Monitoring Plan has been incorporated in the conditions of approval. 5. The proposed residential project will be a transit oriented development with good urban design. It will add fourteen new dwelling units to the neighborhood while preserving a historic structure and retaining the existing creek. It will not unduly shade surrounding dwellings or create unacceptable traffic or parking impacts; and as conditioned it will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the City 6. The proposed amendment is a planned development district. It is consistent with applicable provisions of the zoning code including the purpose and intent of the Residential Mixed Use zone. 7. It will add fourteen new dwelling units to the neighborhood while preserving a historic structure and retaining the existing creek. The site is 0.42 acres in size with a relatively level grade. It has direct access onto Elm Street and will be served by existing utilities in the area. It will not unduly shade surrounding dwellings or create unacceptable traffic or parking impacts; and as conditioned it will not adversely affect the livability of the abutting properties or neighborhood. 8. This project is demonstratively superior to the development that could occur under the standards applicable to the underlying base district in that it represents a balance of many of El Cerrito’s core values. It is a transit oriented development; thereby reducing Vehicle Miles Traveled with good urban design; successful historic preservation and preservation of an existing creek. Had the project had been governed by the base district standards and strict interpretation of the creek protection ordinance, much of the open space would have been lost to surface parking spaces, the number of units would have to have been decreased due to the reduced building footprint, the building would two stories with a mansard roof, which would have greatly reduce the number of dwelling units. 9. The project is consistent with the purposes of the district and conforms in all significant respects with the amended General Plan, as conditioned, in that it consists of high density multifamily development that utilizes good urban design principles including reduced parking requirements, parking concealed under the new building, and a mix of unit types. ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6 Attachment 3 4 10. It is a transit oriented development, thereby reducing Vehicle Miles Traveled with good urban design, successful historic preservation and preservation of an existing creek. All of these goals are public benefits to the City of El Cerrito. SECTION 3. ZONING MAP AMENDMENT Pursuant to Chapter 19.14 of the City of El Cerrito Municipal Code the City of El Cerrito Zoning Map is amended to rezone the property described below to a Planned Development Zoning District: 0.42 acres at 1715 Elm Street (“Project site”). A map of the rezoning area is shown in Exhibit A. 11. Compliance with adopted Mitigation Measures. The Applicant/Developer shall comply with all adopted mitigation measures of the Initial Study and Mitigate Negative Declaration prepared for 1715 Elm Street. 12. Confirmation of ownership. The Applicant/Developer shall provide the City with a recorded copy of the deed vesting title to the property in its name. SECTION 4. NOTICING, POSTING AND PUBLICATION This ordinance is adopted pursuant to the procedures established by state law, and all required notices have been given, and the public hearing has been properly held and conducted. SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE This ordinance shall not take effect until the Development Agreement for the Project takes effect and is recorded on the property. THE FOREGOING ORDINANCE was introduced at a special meeting of the City Council on June 2, 2014 and passed by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers NOES: Councilmembers ABSTAIN: Councilmembers ABSENT: Councilmembers ADOPTED AND ORDERED published at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the June 17, 2014 and passed by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers NOES: Councilmembers ABSENT: Councilmembers ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6 Attachment 3 5 APPROVED: Janet Abelson, Mayor ATTEST: Cheryl Morse, City Clerk IN WITNESS of this action, I sign this document and affix the corporate seal of the City of El Cerrito on June XX, 2014. Cheryl Morse, City Clerk ORDINANCE CERTIFICATION I, Cheryl Morse, City Clerk of the City of El Cerrito, do hereby certify that this Ordinance is the true and correct original Ordinance No. 2014-XX of the City of El Cerrito; that said Ordinance was duly enacted and adopted by the City Council of the City of El Cerrito at a meeting of the City Council held on the __th day of June, 2014; and that said Ordinance has been published and/or posted in the manner required by law. WITNESS my hand and the Official Seal of the City of El Cerrito, California, this __th day of June, 2014. Cheryl Morse, City Clerk ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6 Attachment 3 Ordinance 2014-XX Exhibit A ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6 Attachment 4 1 RESOLUTION 2014–XX A RESOLUTION OF THE EL CERRITO CITY COUNCIL DENYING AN APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT USE PERMIT AT 1715 ELM STREET. WHEREAS, the subject site is located at 1715 Elm Street; and WHEREAS, the zoning district of the site is RM (Multifamily Residential); and WHEREAS, the general plan land use designation of the site is High Density; and WHEREAS, on January 13, 2014 the City circulated an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declarations pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, at their March 19, 2014 meeting, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing, received public testimony and directed staff to bring the project back for formal action; and WHEREAS, at their April 16, 2014 meeting, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing, received public testimony and adopted Resolution PC14-06, adopting an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, at their April 16, 2014 meeting, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing, received public testimony and adopted Resolution PC14-07, approving a Planned Development Use Permit; and WHEREAS on April 28, 2014, Howdy Goudey Robin Mitchell Jason Hasley, Keystone Montessori School I Linda Shehabi, Dan & Henia Pines and Julia Lucia filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s Planned Development Use Permit approval at 1715 Elm Street; and WHEREAS, on June 2, 2014, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the appeal; and WHEREAS, based upon the evidence presented in the record on this matter, including the staff report and oral and written testimony and the proceedings before the Planning Commission, the Council has considered the appeal. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: The City Council of the City of El Cerrito finds that: 1. The proposed residential project will be a transit oriented development (TOD)with good urban design. It will add 14 new dwelling units to the neighborhood while preserving a historic structure and retaining the existing creek. It will not unduly shade surrounding ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6 Attachment 4 2 dwellings or create unacceptable traffic or parking impacts; and as conditioned it will not adversely affect the livability of the abutting properties or neighborhood. 2. The location and design of the project will provide a functional living environment that has good urban design. With the required vehicle parking tucked under the building, day-lighted creek and landscaped area and clear sightlines to the restored historic building, it will be an attractive amenity for the City. 3. The project is consistent with the purposes of the district and conforms in all significant respects with the General Plan as conditioned; in that it consists of high density multifamily development that utilizes good urban design principles including reduced parking requirements, parking concealed under the new building, and a mix of unit types. It also preserves an important historic resource and protects an existing creek by including it within its landscaped area. The project will implement the following General Plan policies: LU1.3: Quality of Development, LU1.5: Suitable Housing, LU1.6: Various Housing Types, LU1.7: Maximum Density, LU5.5: Pedestrians, Bicycles, and Access, LU6.4: Water Conservation, CD1.2: Design Concept, CD1.3: High-Quality Design, CD1.5: Landmarks Preservation, CD 1.9: Building Design, CD3.3: Site Landscaping, CD4.2: Building Articulation, CD5.1: Design Review Process and R2.2: Historic Preservation. 4. The proposed residential project will be a transit oriented development (TOD) located within 800 feet of a BART station (1,400 feet by foot). It will add 13 new dwelling units while preserving a historic dwelling and retain an existing creek. 5. The proposed project offers a range of attached and detached dwellings on site. In the new construction is includes both one bedroom and two bedroom housing unit styles. All units’ prices will be set by the market. It is expected that the prices will reflect the different unit sizes. 6. While this is an important consideration, there was no feasible way to include a mandate to offer these units at an affordable price to persons and families of low and moderate income or lower income homes as defined by the State of California. 7. The existing infrastructure is sufficient to serve the proposed development as proposed. 8. While requiring relief from some development standards of the RM zone, it exceeds the zone requirements for both common area and private open space and allows for ten percent less lot coverage than could have been allowed in this district. 9. The use of the development area is exclusively residential. 10. The design of the new construction has been designed to allow acceptable levels of light and air into the interior spaces of the building. As conditioned, it shall meet or exceed all requirements of the California Building Code. In addition, the distance between the re-located historic building and the adjacent pre-school is approximately 13 feet. ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6 Attachment 4 3 11. This project will contribute to the enhancement of the neighborhood character and the environment of El Cerrito in the long term in that it represents a balance of many of El Cerrito’s core values. It incorporates transit oriented development and good unban design with successful historic preservation and stewardship of an existing creek. 12. The project is proposing to provide 14 new one and two bedroom dwelling units on a 0.42 acre site that is designated in the General Plan for high density. It also proposes to restore and relocate the existing historic single-family detached house on site to provide a fifteenth living unit and preserving an important historic resource. Finally, the project is proposing to keep the creek in place, thereby protecting the 115 foot long water course which is a tributary of the Baxter Creek and utilizing it as an amenity to the overall site. After careful consideration of facts, correspondence, and testimony, and other evidence submitted in this matter, the El Cerrito City Council hereby denies the subject appeal and upholds the Planning Commission’s approval of Planned Development Use Permit at 1715 Elm Street. Application No. 6133, subject to the following conditions: 1. The project will be constructed substantially in conformance with the plans dated January 20, 2014. Minor changes may be approved by the Zoning Administrator. All improvements shall be installed in accordance with these approvals. Once constructed or installed, all improvements shall be maintained as approved. Minor changes may be approved by the Zoning Administrator. 2. If Applicant constructs buildings or makes improvements in accordance with these approvals, but fails to comply with any of the conditions of approval or limitations set forth in these Conditions of Approval and does not cure any such failure within a reasonable time after notice from the City of El Cerrito, then such failure shall be cause for non-issuance of a certificate of occupancy, revocation or modification of these approvals or any other remedies available to the City. 3. These Conditions of Approval shall apply to any successor in interest in the property and Applicant shall be responsible for assuring that the successor in interest is informed of the terms and conditions of this approval. 4. All new residential developments of five or more units are required to comply with the Art in Public Places ordinance pursuant to El Cerrito Municipal Code Section 13.50. This is a requirement of any project with development costs of two hundred fifty thousand dollars or more. The applicant shall devote an amount not less than one percent of such costs for acquisition and installation of public art on the development site, subject to a maximum of one hundred fifty thousand dollars. Compliance with the provisions of this chapter shall be demonstrated by the applicant at the time of filing a building permit application in one of the following ways: a) Payment of the full amount of the public art in-lieu contribution; or b) Written proof to the community development department of a contractual agreement to commission or purchase and install the required public art on the subject ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6 Attachment 4 4 development site and a written acknowledgement by the visual art professional and the owner or developer, in a form approved by the city, that the proposed public art complies with the following criteria: 1) The public art shall be designed and constructed by any person experienced in the production of such art and recognized by critics and by his or her peers as one who produces works of art, 2) The public art shall require a low level of maintenance and that the proposed maintenance provisions are adequate for the long-term integrity and enjoyment of the work, 3) The public art shall be related in terms of scale, material, form and content to immediate and adjacent buildings and architecture, landscaping or other setting so as to complement the site and its surroundings and shall be consistent with any corresponding action of the planning commission, design review board or city council as it may relate to any development entitlements, 4) Permanent public art shall be a fixed asset to the property, 5) The public art shall be maintained by the property owner in a manner acceptable to the city, 6) The public art meets all applicable building code requirements. The applicant shall provide the city with proof of installation of the required public art project on the development site prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. If installation prior to the date of occupancy is impracticable, as determined by the city manager or his or her designee, a certificate of occupancy may be approved for the building or portion thereof if the application submitted pursuant to this section has been approved, the applicant has executed a written agreement with the city to install the public art, and the applicant has filed security in an amount and form acceptable to the city attorney to guarantee installation of the public art. Community Development Department Building and Planning Division: 1. The mitigation measures identified in the mitigation monitoring plan (MMRP) shall be considered conditions of approval of the project. They are included as Attachment A to the resolution. 2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Building Official shall confirm that the building permit plans, specifications and other related information conform to the California Codes in effect at the time, and all other applicable local ordinances. Compliance with the California Codes and local ordinances shall include, but not be limited to, seismic and geotechnical requirements for Seismic Zone 4, and Title 24 energy conservation and disabled access requirements. 3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall submit to the Building Official proof of compliance with all other permits necessary from the applicable regulatory ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6 Attachment 4 5 agencies, including but not limited to the Stege Sanitary District, West Contra Costa Unified School District, Pacific Gas and Electric and East Bay Municipal Utility District. 4. A demolition permit for all proposed demolition shall be submitted to and approved by the City of El Cerrito prior to issuance of a building permit. 5. Prior to the issuance of a demolition or building permit, the Building Official shall confirm that a survey of lead-based paint (LBP) and asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) shall be completed and all identified ACMs and any loose or peeling LBP must be abated. If intact LBP is present on the site and not abated, demolition and construction activities must comply with the State’s construction lead standard (Title 8, California Code of Regulators, Section 1532.1). 6. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant and/or construction company shall submit the location of construction staging areas for materials, equipment, and vehicles to the Zoning Administrator for review and approval. 7. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant and/or construction company shall submit a parking management plan for all construction workers and their equipment to ensure that construction workers or construction equipment and vehicles do not occupy on-street spaces. 8. In the City of El Cerrito, the hours of construction work are limited to: a) 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday b) 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays c) Work is prohibited on Sundays and holidays. d) Work may be prohibited during inclement weather by order of the City Building Official. 9. No construction shall take place on June 27, 2014 at the request of the preschool. 10. To ensure that the construction of the project is completed with minimal impact to the existing neighborhood, the following requirements shall be met before the issuance of a building permit: a) Applicant shall submit a construction sign for approval by the Development Services Manager. The sign shall be made of a permanent material with professional lettering. The sign shall be at least 2 feet by 3 feet with a minimum letter size of 2 inches. The sign shall include the following information: the project name; name of the owner/developer; the name and phone number of a contact person, available at all times to address complaints and with the authority to control construction activity on the site; name and phone number of the contractor; and the approved hours of construction. The sign shall be posted at the time of placing temporary fencing and start of construction activity. The sign shall be placed on the Elm Street frontage of the site in a location facing the street where the information can be easily read. ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6 Attachment 4 6 b) Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a site security and safety plan to assure that grading and construction activities are adequately secured during off-work hours. This will include the temporary construction fence required in the Public Works Department condition listed below. The height of the construction fence on the south side of the property shall be twelve feet in height. 11. The applicant shall stipulate in the construction bid information for the project that construction company shall be required to do the following: a) A notification procedure stating their plan to notify adjacent property owners as to when major deliveries, detours and lane closures may occur. At a minimum, this notification plan will include a written notice sent electronically as soon as possible to all neighbors that request such notification. The list of interested parties will be kept by the Community Development Department. b) A meeting in person with the operators of the preschool to go over any issues or concerns. c) Make every possible effort shall be made to have the construction site turn off all unnecessary heavy equipment, generators and power tools from noon until 1:00 p.m. 12. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the Zoning Administrator shall confirm that: a) All mechanical equipment, including electrical and gas meters, heating/air conditioning or ventilation units, radio/TV antennas or satellite dishes shall be appropriately screened from off-site view, and electrical transformers shall be either placed underground or appropriately screened. b) All visible vents, gutters, down spouts, flashings, and the like shall match the color of adjacent surfaces, or shall be incorporated into the overall exterior color and materials scheme for the building. 13. All landscaping improvements shall be maintained in a healthy, growing condition at all times. The landscaped areas shall be irrigated by an automatic sprinkler system designed to reduce water usage. Applicant shall replace all landscaping that dies with the exact living species, or substitutes approved by the Zoning Administrator. 14. The applicant has volunteered to donate four thousand dollars to the City of El Cerrito towards the creation and installation of up to two historical plaques. (This money will be held in a draw down account and any unused funds will be refunded.) The purpose of commemorative plaques would be to explain the history of the Rodini house as well as the history of the surrounding Little Italy neighborhood. The Zoning Administrator shall work with the El Cerrito Historical Society to create these plaques. The plaques will be installed on the front fence of the new project. 15. If for some reason, the City Council denies the Development Agreement, the General Plan Amendment or the Planned Development District, this entitlement is null and void. ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6 Attachment 4 7 Public Works Department: 16. A complete Stormwater Control Plan (Narrative Report and Exhibit) prepared in accordance with the latest version of Contra Costa Stormwater C.3 Guidebook, must be submitted as soon as possible to ensure the stormwater design, site plan, and landscaping plan are congruent. 17. Any changes to existing storm drain channel will require a Public Works Encroachment Permit and may require that storm drain easement be recorded. The applicant must furnish plans, specifications and hydrology/hydraulics studies, as appropriate, prior to consideration of the permit application. The City may impose conditions as are appropriate to eliminate any diminution in the capacity of the existing drain to carry off the volume of water reasonably anticipated. If conflict exists between the Encroachment Permit and the JARPA permit, the JARPA permit shall prevail. 18. Remove and replace all sidewalk and driveway approaches to comply with Americans with Disability Act and all other applicable City standards. Sidewalk and driveway improvements shall require a Public Works Encroachment Permit. 19. All site grading shall be done per Chapters 8 and 13 of the El Cerrito Municipal Code and all other relevant laws, rules and regulations. Prior to commencing any grading in excess of 50 cubic yards, the applicant shall obtain a Grading & Transportation Permit and approval from the Public Works Department. 20. New street tree types and locations shall be approved by the City Arborist prior to issuance of building permit. 21. Prior to issuance of a building, demolition or grading permit for any portion of the project, applicant shall submit a Traffic and Parking Management Plan for review and approval by the Public Works Director and the Zoning Administrator. The plan shall include any City restrictions and limitations on using certain local streets for construction traffic, proposed truck delivery and haul routes, parking arrangements for construction personnel, ingress and egress, noise, efforts to address street debris and dust control and proposed on-site staging and equipment/material storage areas. 22. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, applicant shall install temporary construction fence around the perimeter of the site that provides for continued pedestrian traffic meeting the standards of the Americans with Disabilities Act as approved by the Public Works Director and the Zoning Administrator. On the southern property line, the fence shall be 12 feet high to provide an additional visual and safety screen for the adjacent school. The applicant shall submit the materials for the fence to the Zoning Administrator for review and approval before the fence is installed. 23. Applicant, through its contractor, shall implement comprehensive traffic control measures as set forth in the approved Traffic and Parking Management Plan, including scheduling of major truck trips and deliveries to avoid peak hours (normally 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. to 6 ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6 Attachment 4 8 24. All mud, dirt and construction debris carried off the construction site onto adjacent streets shall be removed and cleaned daily. Failure to adequately sweep the streets may result in the City undertaking the effort at Applicant’s cost. 25. Dust control measures to minimize air quality impacts shall be implemented including: a) Cover stockpiles of debris, soil, sand or other materials that can be blown by the wind. b) Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials. c) Pave, apply non-potable water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at site. d) Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 5 mph. e) Install, maintain and replace sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. f) Minimize removal and replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. g) No grading between October 1st and April 15th unless the City Engineer has approved an erosion and sedimentation control plan. 26. Applicant shall be deemed responsible for any damage to public improvements that occurs during construction and shall repair such damage at its expense and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, including but not limited to sidewalk repair, street slurry seal or street reconstruction. 27. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the Public Works Director shall confirm that all off-site and on-site public improvements (including sidewalk and driveway approaches) are completed in accordance with the final building permit and improvement plans or that other arrangements acceptable to the Public Works Director have been made for ensuring that the work is completed, such as an irrevocable standby letter of credit. Operations and Environmental Services Division 28. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide provision for pickup and hauling of solid waste and recycling to the satisfaction of the City of El Cerrito Operations & Environmental Services Division. This includes a written description of the plan for the removal of solid waste and recycling items; the plans clearly showing the location of the solid waste and recycling area and the proposed access for both users and waste haulers. The solid waste and recycling area must include: a) Access doors that are at least 8 feet wide. b) The solid waste and recycling storage areas/room shall be lined with metal bands 2 feet wide at a height starting 3 feet from the ground. c) There shall be sloping curbs in front of the access door to the solid waste and recycling storage areas/rooms. 29. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a Construction/Demolition Waste Management Plan to the satisfaction of the City of El Cerrito Operations and Environmental Services Division. This plan must comply with the California Building Code requirement that at least 50% by weight of jobsite debris generated by new construction be recycled, reused or otherwise diverted from landfill disposal. ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6 Attachment 4 9 30. Upon completion of construction and demolition activities, but before the Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall submit the CWM Report to demonstrate achievement of the diversion requirement to the satisfaction of the City of El Cerrito Operations and Environmental Services Division. Fire Department: 31. Approved numbers or address shall be provided in such a position to be plainly visible and legible from the street fronting the property. a) The address numbers shall be of contrasting color of the back ground b) Shall be internally or externally illuminated. c) If address cannot be placed as stated above a monument shall be placed where the address is plainly visible from the street. 32. An Automatic Fire Sprinkler System is required for this project. 33. A fire hydrant is required within 50’ of the Fire Department Connection (FDC) and shall be on the same side of the street as the FDC unless approved by the Fire Marshal. 34. Building shall have a “Wet Fire Standpipe in rear stairwell. 35. Standpipes shall be interconnected with the fire sprinkler system. 36. The fire alarm system shall be installed in accordance with NFPA 72. 37. Fire alarm System shall have the FACP located in an approved location and shall be easily accessible and access doors clearly labeled. 38. If the FACP cannot be located for easy access a remote enunciator shall be placed in an approved location. 39. Knox box shall be placed adjacent to entry doors, doors inclosing the fire sprinkler riser and or fire alarms control panel and any remote annunciating locations, and locking gates. 40. Electronic gate shall have a Knox Key Entry System installed for emergency operations. 41. All Knox Box Entry Systems used in this building shall be approved by the Fire Marshall before installation. 42. Fire Extinguishers shall be placed on each level and throughout the building. a) Spacing shall have a maximum travel distance of 75’. b) Travel distance to an extinguisher shall not exceed 75’ of travel distance. c) The location of each extinguisher shall be conspicuously posted with an approved sign. d) Mount Fire extinguishers on wall with the top no higher than 5 feet from the ground. 43. All electrical breakers shall be labeled. Major equipment shall have corresponding labels. ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6 Attachment 4 10 44. The Fire Department shall review building plans for compliance of these before a building permit is issued. The applicant shall provide Fire Prevention Division with 24-hour notice prior to any inspections. Implementation of these conditions shall be verified prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. Police Department: 45. The building plans shall note that exterior lighting shall provide adequate illumination for on-site security and display purposes for the building, parking lot and pedestrian accessways while limiting off-site spillover of light through shielding. This condition shall be reviewed for compliance prior to the Certificate of Occupancy. I CERTIFY that at a regular meeting on June 2, 2014, the El Cerrito City Council passed this Resolution by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: IN WITNESS of this action, I sign this document and affix the corporate seal of the City of El Cerrito on June X, 2014. Cheryl Morse, City Clerk APPROVED: Janet Abelson, Mayor ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6 Attachment 5 1 ORDINANCE 2014–XX AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EL CERRITO APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF EL CERRITO AND THE EDWARD AND LORETTA BIGGS REVOCABLE TRUST FOR 1715 ELM STREET – APPLICATION 6133 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EL CERRITO DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. RECITALS A. The Applicant, the Edward and Loretta Biggs Revocable Trust, proposes a development project that includes the relocation and renovation of an existing historical single- family detached house on the Property, the construction of 14 new one- and two-bedroom dwelling units, and the preservation of an existing creek on 0.42 acre site. The project proposes a General Plan Amendment to change the allowable density to 35.7 units per acre; Planned Development District; a Planned Development Use Permit; Design Review; a subdivision map and condominium plan; and this Development Agreement. The proposed development and applications are collectively known as the “Project”; related approvals of the applications are collectively known as the “Project Approvals”. B. The Project site is located at 1715 Elm Street in El Cerrito, California (the “Property”). C. The Applicant and City desire to enter into a Development Agreement subject to certain terms, attached to this ordinance, and the vesting of the Project Approvals for ten years. D. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the state guidelines and City environmental regulations, require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared. E. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) have been prepared for this Project. All potential impacts identified are reduced to a less than significant level pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act with the implementation of mitigation measures. F. On April 16, 2014, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the Project, and adopted Resolution 14-07 recommending that the City Council adopt the Planned Development Use Permit, which Resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours. G. On May 21, 2014, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the Project, including the proposed General Plan Amendment, Planned Development District and Development Agreement, and adopted Resolution 14-10 recommending that the City Council not adopt the General Plan Amendment, Planned Development District and ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6 Attachment 5 2 Development Agreement, which Resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours. H. The City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on the Project, including the proposed Development Agreement, on June 2, 2014 at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard. I. A staff report dated June 2, 2014 and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the Project, including the Development Agreement, for the City Council. J. The City Council used their independent judgment and considered the staff report, the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, and all reports, recommendations and testimony referenced above and adopted Resolution No. 14-XX adopting the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration prior to approving the Development Agreement. K. The City Council has considered the recommendation of the Planning Commission on the Development Agreement, including the Planning Commission’s reasons for its recommendation, the staff report, all comments received in writing, and all testimony received at the public hearing. SECTION 2. FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS On the basis of: the foregoing Recitals which are incorporated herein, the City of El Cerrito General Plan; Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, the staff report; information in the entire record of proceedings for the Project, and on the basis of the specific conclusions set forth below, the City Council finds and determines that: 1. The Development Agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified and contained in the City’s General Plan in that: the General Plan land use designations, policies, programs and objectives are incorporated into the Development Agreement and not altered by the Development Agreement; and the Project is consistent with the fiscal policies of the General Plan with respect to the provision of infrastructure and public services. 2. The Development Agreement is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the regulations prescribed for, the land use districts in which the real property is located. 3. The Development Agreement is in conformity with public convenience, general welfare, and good land use policies in that the Project will implement land use guidelines set forth in the General Plan. 4. The Development Agreement will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare in that the Developer’s proposed Project will proceed in accordance with all the programs and policies of the General Plan and Project Approvals. ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6 Attachment 5 3 5. The Development Agreement will not adversely affect the orderly development of property or the preservation of property values in that the Project will be consistent with the General Plan and Project Approvals. 6. The Development Agreement complies with the requirements of 65864 et seq. of the California Government Code and El Cerrito Municipal Code Chapter 19.14 and specifies the duration of the agreement, the permitted uses of the property, the density or intensity of use, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings, and provisions for reservation of open space. The Development Agreement contains an indemnity and insurance clause requiring the developer to indemnify and hold the City harmless against claims arising out of the development process, including all legal fees and costs. SECTION 3. APPROVAL The City Council hereby approves the Development Agreement (Exhibit A to the Ordinance) and authorizes the City Manager to execute it. SECTION 4. NOTICING, POSTING, PUBLICATION AND RECORDATION This ordinance is adopted pursuant to the procedures established by state law, and all required notices have been given, and the public hearing has been properly held and conducted. Within ten days after the Development Agreement is fully executed by all parties, the Development Services Manager shall submit the Agreement to the County Recorder for recordation. SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE This ordinance shall take effect thirty days after the date of its adoption, and prior to the expiration of fifteen days from the passage thereof, the ordinance or a summary thereof shall be posted or published as may be required by law, and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect. THE FOREGOING ORDINANCE was introduced at a special meeting of the City Council on June 2, 2014 and passed by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers NOES: Councilmembers ABSTAIN: Councilmembers ABSENT: Councilmembers ADOPTED AND ORDERED published at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the June 17, 2014 and passed by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers NOES: Councilmembers ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6 Attachment 5 4 ABSTAIN: Councilmembers ABSENT: Councilmembers APPROVED: Janet Abelson, Mayor ATTEST: Cheryl Morse, City Clerk IN WITNESS of this action, I sign this document and affix the corporate seal of the City of El Cerrito on June XX, 2014. Cheryl Morse, City Clerk ORDINANCE CERTIFICATION I, Cheryl Morse, City Clerk of the City of El Cerrito, do hereby certify that this Ordinance is the true and correct original Ordinance No. 2014-XX of the City of El Cerrito; that said Ordinance was duly enacted and adopted by the City Council of the City of El Cerrito at a meeting of the City Council held on the __th day of June, 2014; and that said Ordinance has been published and/or posted in the manner required by law. WITNESS my hand and the Official Seal of the City of El Cerrito, California, this __th day of June, 2014. Cheryl Morse, City Clerk ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item 6 Attachment 5 Exhibit A RECORDING REQUESTED BY: CITY OF EL CERRITO When Recorded Mail To: City Clerk City of El Cerrito 10890 San Pablo Ave. El Cerrito, CA 94530 Exempt from Recorder’s Fees Pursuant to Government Code 27383, 6103 Space above this line for Recorder’s use DRAFT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF EL CERRITO AND THE EDWARD AND LORETTA BIGGS REVOCABLE TRUST DATED MARCH 22, 2011 FOR 1715 ELM STREET ---PAGE BREAK--- Development Agreement for 1715 Elm Street, El Cerrito Page 2 of 16 2267772.8 THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (“Agreement” or “Development Agreement”) is made and entered into in the City of El Cerrito on 2014, by and between the City of El Cerrito, a municipal corporation (“City”) and The Edward and Loretta Biggs Revocable Trust dated March 22, 2011 (“Developer”) pursuant to the authority of 65864 et seq. of the California Government Code and El Cerrito Municipal Code, Chapters 19.14 and 19.41. City and Developer are, from time-to-time, individually referred to in this Agreement as a “party,” and collectively as “parties.” RECITALS A. California Government Code 65864 et seq. (“Development Agreement Law”) and Chapter 19.41 of the El Cerrito Municipal Code (“Chapter 19.41”) authorize the City to enter into a development agreement for the development of real property with any person having a legal or equitable interest in such property in order to establish certain development rights in such property. Chapter 19.14 of the El Cerrito Municipal Code (“Chapter 19.14”) requires a development agreement for all projects for which Planned Development District zoning is approved. B. Developer owns the real property located at 1715 El Street in the City (APN 502-112-038) and that is more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and is incorporated herein by reference (the “Property”). C. The proposed development of the Property includes the relocation and renovation of an existing historical single-family detached house on the Property, the construction of 14 new one- and two-bedroom dwelling units, and the preservation of an existing creek on 0.42 acre site (the “Project”). D. Developer has applied for and City has approved or is processing, various land use approvals in connection with the Project, including, without limitation, a General Plan Amendment; Planned Development District zoning; a Planned Development Use Permit; Design Review; a subdivision map and condominium plan; and this Development Agreement. All such approvals, collectively, together with any approvals or permits now or hereafter issued with respect to the Project, are referred to as the “Project Approvals.” None of the Project Approvals take effect until the Development Agreement takes effect. E. City desires the timely, efficient, orderly and proper development of the Project. F. The City Council has found that, among other things, this Development Agreement is consistent with its General Plan, as amended, and has been reviewed and evaluated in accordance with the Development Agreement Law and Chapters 19.14 and 19.41. ---PAGE BREAK--- Development Agreement for 1715 Elm Street, El Cerrito Page 3 of 16 2267772.8 G. City and Developer have reached agreement and desire to express herein a Development Agreement that will facilitate development of the Project, subject to conditions set forth herein. H. The El Cerrito Planning Commission approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project on April 16, 2014 by the adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. PC14- XX. The Mitigated Negative Declaration analyzed the environmental impacts of this Agreement. No significant unavoidable impacts were identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. I. On 2014, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. approving this Development Agreement (the “Approving Ordinance”). The Approving Ordinance states that it will take effect on (the “Ordinance Effective Date”). NOW, THEREFORE, with reference to the foregoing recitals and in consideration of the mutual promises, obligations and covenants herein contained, City and Developer agree as follows: AGREEMENT 1. Description of Property. The Property that is the subject of this Agreement is described in Exhibit A attached hereto. 2. Interest of Developer. The Developer owns the Property. 3. Relationship of City and Developer. It is understood that this Agreement is a contract that has been negotiated and voluntarily entered into by the City and Developer and that the Developer is not an agent of the City. The City and Developer hereby renounce the existence of any form of joint venture or partnership between them, and agree that nothing contained herein or in any document executed in connection herewith shall be construed as making the City and Developer joint venturers or partners. 4. Effective Date, Term, and Termination. 4.1. Effective Date. The effective date of this Agreement shall be the Ordinance Effective Date (“Effective Date”). 4.2. Term. The term of this Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and extend 10 years thereafter, unless said term is otherwise terminated or ---PAGE BREAK--- Development Agreement for 1715 Elm Street, El Cerrito Page 4 of 16 2267772.8 modified pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. As authorized by California Government Code Sections 65863.9 and 66452.6(a)(1), the terms of the Project Approvals shall be the longer of: the term of this Agreement; or the term normally given each approval under controlling law. 4.3. Termination. 4.3.1. Termination on Sale of Individual Lots. Notwithstanding the foregoing Section 4.2, the provisions of this Agreement shall terminate with respect to any individual lot and such lot shall be released from and shall no longer be subject to this Agreement (without the execution or recordation of any further document or the taking of any further action) upon the lot being finally subdivided and sold or leased to a member of the public or any other ultimate user. City shall cooperate with Developer, at no cost to City, in executing in recordable form any document that Developer (including any successor to the title of the Developer in and to any of the aforedescribed lots) may submit to confirm the termination of this Agreement as to any such lot. For purposes of this Section 4.3.1, each reference to a “lot” shall be deemed to include an individual dwelling unit that is a standalone structure or constructed within a multi-unit building, whether leased as an apartment or single-family home or sold as a condominium or similar interest in the Property. 4.3.2. Termination Upon Completion of Project. Notwithstanding the foregoing Sections 4.2 and 4.3.1, upon completing construction of the Project and satisfying all terms and conditions of this Agreement and the Project Approvals, Developer may send City written notice terminating this Agreement. City shall cooperate with Developer, at no cost to City, in executing in recordable form any document that Developer (including any successor to the title of Developer in and to any portion of the Property) may submit to confirm the termination of this Agreement. 5. Use of the Property. 5.1. Right to Develop. Developer shall have the vested right to develop the Project on the Property in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Project Approvals (as and when issued), and any amendments to any of them as shall, from time to time, be approved pursuant to this Agreement. (Such amendments, once effective, shall become part of the law Developer is vested into without an additional amendment of this Agreement.) Notwithstanding the foregoing or anything to the contrary herein, any amendment to the General Plan not in effect on the Effective Date shall not become part of the law Developer is vested into under this Agreement unless an additional amendment of this Agreement is entered into between Developer and City in accordance with state and City laws. ---PAGE BREAK--- Development Agreement for 1715 Elm Street, El Cerrito Page 5 of 16 2267772.8 5.2. Permitted Uses. The permitted uses of the Property, the density and intensity of use, the maximum height, bulk, and size of proposed buildings, the provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes, the location and maintenance of on-site and off-site improvements, the location of public utilities, and other terms and conditions of development applicable to the Property, shall be those set forth in this Agreement, the Project Approvals and any amendments to this Agreement or the Project Approvals, subject to the provisions of Section 5.1. 5.3. Rules Regarding Permitted Uses. For the term of this Agreement, the City’s ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations and official policies governing the permitted uses of the Property and governing density and intensity of use of the Property and the maximum height, bulk and size of proposed buildings shall be those in force and effect on the Effective Date of this Agreement. 5.4. Rules Regarding Design and Construction. Unless otherwise expressly provided in Section 5 of this Agreement, the ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations and official policies governing design, improvement and construction standards and specifications applicable to the Project shall be those in force and effect at the time of the applicable discretionary approval, whether the date of that approval is prior to or after the date of this Agreement. Ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations and official policies governing design, improvement and construction standards, and specifications applicable to public improvements to be constructed by Developer shall be those in force and effect at the time of the applicable discretionary approval, whether the date of that approval is prior to or after the date of this Agreement. 5.5. Building and Other Codes Applicable. The Project shall be constructed in accordance with the provisions of the Building, Mechanical, Plumbing, Electrical, and Fire Codes and Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, relating to Building Standards, in effect at the time of approval of the appropriate building, grading, encroachment or other construction permits for the Project. 6. Subsequently Enacted Rules and Regulations. 6.1. New Rules and Regulations. Consistent with Government Code section 65866, during the term of this Agreement, the City may apply new or modified ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations and official policies of the City, whether adopted by the City or through the referendum or initiative process (“New City Laws”) to the Property, which were not in force and effect on the Effective Date of this Agreement and which are not in conflict with those applicable to the Property as set forth in this Agreement and are not in conflict with the Project Approvals. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, or any other provision of this Agreement, a New City Law shall be deemed to conflict ---PAGE BREAK--- Development Agreement for 1715 Elm Street, El Cerrito Page 6 of 16 2267772.8 with this Agreement to the extent it limits or controls the timing of construction or occupancy of the Project. 6.2. Approval of Application. Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent the City from denying or conditionally approving any subsequent land use permit or authorization for the Project on the basis of such New City Laws except that such subsequent actions shall be subject to any conditions, terms, restrictions, and requirements expressly set forth herein. 7. Subsequently Enacted or Revised Fees, Assessments and Taxes. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, the Project shall be subject to subsequently enacted or revised fees, assessments and taxes adopted by the City after the Effective Date of this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement creates a vested right for the Project in the amount or type of fees, assessments and taxes in effect on the Effective Date of this Agreement. 8. Amendment or Cancellation. 8.1. Modification Because of Conflict with State or Federal Laws. The Project and Property shall be subject to state and federal laws and regulations and this Agreement does not create any vested right in state and federal laws and regulations in effect on the Effective Date. In the event that state or federal laws or regulations enacted after the Effective Date of this Agreement prevent or preclude compliance with one or more provisions of this Agreement or require changes in plans, maps, or permits approved by the City, the parties shall meet and confer in good faith in a reasonable attempt to modify this Agreement to comply with such federal or state law or regulation. Any such amendment or suspension of the Agreement shall be subject to approval by the City Council in accordance with Chapter 8.56 of the Municipal Code. 8.2. Amendment by Mutual Consent. This Agreement may be amended in writing from time to time by mutual consent of the parties hereto and in accordance with the procedures of state law and Chapter 19.41. 8.3. Insubstantial Amendments. Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding Paragraph 8.2, any amendments to this Agreement that do not relate to the term of the Agreement as provided in Paragraph 4.2; the permitted uses of the Property as provided in Paragraph 5.2; the density or intensity of use of the Project; the maximum height or size of proposed buildings; or monetary contributions by Developer as provided in this Agreement, shall not, except to the extent otherwise required by law, require notice or public hearing before either the Planning Commission or the City Council before the parties may execute an amendment hereto. ---PAGE BREAK--- Development Agreement for 1715 Elm Street, El Cerrito Page 7 of 16 2267772.8 8.4. Cancellation By Mutual Consent. Except as otherwise permitted herein, this Agreement may be canceled in whole or in part only by the mutual consent of the parties or their successors in interest, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 19.41. 9. Annual Review. 9.1. Review Date. The annual review date for this Agreement shall be between June 1 and July 1, 2015 and thereafter between each June 1 and July 1 during the Term. 9.2. Initiation of Review. Developer shall initiate annual review of this Agreement by submitting an annual application. Developer shall submit with such application a report to the City's Community Development Director describing the Developer's good faith substantial compliance with the terms of this Agreement during the preceding year and include supporting evidence. Such report shall include a statement that the report is submitted to the City pursuant to the requirements of Government Code Section 65865.1 and of this Agreement. The report shall comply with Section 19.41.050 of Chapter 19.41. The burden of proof by substantial evidence of compliance is upon the Developer. 9.3. Finding of Compliance. Within thirty (30) days after Developer submits its report hereunder, the City's Community Development Director shall review Developer's submission to ascertain whether Developer has demonstrated good faith substantial compliance with the material terms of this Agreement. If the Community Development Director finds and determines, in consultation with the City Manager and the City's Public Works Director, that Developer has in good faith substantially complied with the material terms of this Agreement, or does not determine otherwise within 30 days after delivery of Developer's report, then the annual review shall be concluded. If the Community Development Director initially determines that such report is inadequate in any respect, then he or she shall provide written notice to that effect to Developer, and Developer may supply such additional information or evidence as may be necessary to demonstrate good faith substantial compliance with the material terms of this Agreement. Following consultation with the City Manager and the City's Public Works Director, if the Community Development Director concludes that Developer has not demonstrated good faith substantial compliance with the material terms of this Agreement, then he or she shall so notify Developer within 30 days after delivery of the additional information and prepare a report to the City Council with respect to the conclusions of the Community Development Director and the contentions of Developer with respect thereto. 9.4. City Council Hearing Regarding Non-Compliance. After submission of the staff report of the City's Community Development Director, the City Council shall conduct a noticed public hearing to consider the determination that Developer has not demonstrated good faith substantial compliance with the ---PAGE BREAK--- Development Agreement for 1715 Elm Street, El Cerrito Page 8 of 16 2267772.8 material terms of this Agreement. At least ten (10) days prior to hearing, the Community Development Director shall provide to the City Council, Developer and to all interested persons requesting the same, copies of all staff reports and other information concerning Developer's good faith substantial compliance with the material terms of this Agreement and the conclusions and recommendations of the Community Development Director. At such hearing, Developer and any other interested person shall be entitled to submit evidence, orally or in writing, and address all the issues raised in the staff report on, or with respect or germane to, the issue of Developer's good faith substantial compliance with the material terms of this Agreement. If, after receipt of any written or oral response of Developer, and after considering all of the evidence at such public hearing, the City Council finds and determines, on the basis of substantial evidence, that Developer has not substantially complied in good faith with the material terms of this Agreement, then the City Council shall specify to Developer the respects in which Developer has failed to comply, and shall also specify a reasonable time for Developer to meet the terms of compliance, which time shall be not less than thirty (30) days after the date of the City Council's determination, and shall be reasonably related to the time necessary to adequately bring Developer's performance into good faith substantial compliance with the material terms of this Agreement. If the areas of noncompliance specified by the City Council are not corrected within the time limits prescribed by the City Council hereunder, then the City Council may by subsequent noticed hearing extend the time for compliance for such period as the City Council may determine (with conditions, if the City Council deems appropriate), terminate, or modify this Agreement, or take such other actions as permitted under applicable law, Any notice to Developer of a determination of noncompliance by Developer hereunder, or of a failure by Developer to remedy the areas of noncompliance hereunder, shall specify in reasonable detail the grounds therefore and all facts demonstrating such noncompliance or failure, so that Developer may address the issues raised in the notice of noncompliance or failure on point-by-point basis in any hearing held by the City Council hereunder. 9.5. Meet and Confer Process. If either the City's Community Services Director or the City Council makes a determination that Developer has not demonstrated good faith substantial compliance with the material terms of this Agreement, then the City Manager and/or designated City Council representatives may initiate a meet and confer process with Developer pursuant to which the Parties shall meet and confer to determine a resolution acceptable to both Parties of the bases upon which the Community Services Director or City Council has determined that Developer has not demonstrated good faith substantial compliance with the material terms of this Agreement. The results and recommendations of the meet and confer process shall be presented to the City Council for review and consideration at its next regularly scheduled public meeting, including consideration of such amendments to this Agreement as may ---PAGE BREAK--- Development Agreement for 1715 Elm Street, El Cerrito Page 9 of 16 2267772.8 be necessary or appropriate to effectuate the resolution through such meet and confer process, Developer shall be deemed to be in good faith substantial compliance with the material terms of this Agreement, only upon the City Council's acceptance of the results and recommendation of the meet and confer process. 9.6. Staff Reports. To the extent practical, the City shall deposit in the mail and fax or email to Developer a copy of all staff reports, and related exhibits concerning contract performance at least five days prior to any annual review. 9.7. Costs. Costs reasonably incurred by the City in connection with the annual review shall be paid by Developer in accordance with the City’s schedule of fees in effect at the time of review. 10. Default. 10.1. Other Remedies Available. Upon the occurrence of an event of default, the parties may pursue all other remedies at law or in equity that are not otherwise provided for in this Agreement or in the City’s regulations governing development agreements, expressly including the remedy of specific performance of this Agreement. 10.2. Notice and Cure. Upon the occurrence of an event of default by either party, the nondefaulting party shall serve written notice of such default upon the defaulting party. If the default is not cured by the defaulting party within thirty (30) days after service of such notice of default, the nondefaulting party may then commence any legal or equitable action to enforce its rights under this Agreement; provided, however, that, if the default cannot be cured within such thirty (30) day period, the nondefaulting party shall refrain from any such legal or equitable action so long as the defaulting party begins to cure such default within such thirty (30) day period and diligently pursues such cure to completion. Failure to give notice shall not constitute a waiver of any default. 10.3. No Damages Against City. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, in no event shall damages be awarded against the City upon an event of default or upon termination of this Agreement. 11. Estoppel Certificate. Either party may, at any time, and from time to time, send written notice to the other party requesting such party to certify in writing that this Agreement is in full force and effect and a binding obligation of the parties, this Agreement has not been amended or modified either orally or in writing, or, if so amended, identifying the amendments, and to the knowledge of the certifying party, the requesting party is not in default in the performance of its obligations under this Agreement, or, if in default, to describe therein the nature and amount ---PAGE BREAK--- Development Agreement for 1715 Elm Street, El Cerrito Page 10 of 16 2267772.8 of any such defaults. A party receiving a request hereunder shall execute and return such certificate within thirty (30) days following the receipt thereof, or such longer period as may reasonably be agreed to by the parties. City Manager of the City shall be authorized to execute any certificate requested by Developer. Should the party receiving the request not execute and return such certificate within the applicable period, this shall not be deemed to be a default, provided that such party shall be deemed to have certified that the statements in clauses through of this Section are true, and any party may rely on such deemed certification. 12. Mortgagee Protection; Certain Rights of Cure. 12.1. Mortgagee Protection. This Agreement shall be superior and senior to any lien placed upon the Property, or any portion thereof after the date of recording this Agreement, including the lien for any deed of trust or mortgage (“Mortgage”). Notwithstanding the foregoing, no breach hereof shall defeat, render invalid, diminish, or impair the lien of any Mortgage made in good faith and for value, but all the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement shall be binding upon and effective against any person or entity, including any deed of trust beneficiary or mortgagee (“Mortgagee”) who acquires title to the Property, or any portion thereof, by foreclosure, trustee’s sale, deed in lieu of foreclosure, or otherwise. 12.2. Mortgagee Not Obligated. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 12.1 above, no Mortgagee shall have any obligation or duty under this Agreement, before or after foreclosure or a deed in lieu of foreclosure, to construct or complete the construction of improvements, or to guarantee such construction of improvements, or to guarantee such construction or completion, or to pay, perform or provide any fee, dedication, improvements or other exaction or imposition; provided, however, that the Mortgagee shall not be entitled to devote the Property to any uses or to construct any improvements thereon other than those uses or improvements provided for or authorized by the Project Approvals or by this Agreement without new approvals by the City as may be required for such other uses or improvements. 12.3. Notice of Default to Mortgagee and Extension of Right to Cure. If the City receives notice from a Mortgagee requesting a copy of any notice of default given Developer hereunder and specifying the address for service thereof, then the City shall deliver to such Mortgagee, concurrently with service thereon to Developer, any notice given to Developer with respect to any claim by the City that Developer has committed an event of default. Each Mortgagee shall have the right during the same period available to Developer to cure or remedy, or to commence to cure or remedy, the event of default claimed set forth in the City’s notice. The City, through its City Manager, may extend the thirty-day cure period provided in Paragraph 10.2 for not more than an additional sixty (60) days upon request of Developer or a Mortgagee. ---PAGE BREAK--- Development Agreement for 1715 Elm Street, El Cerrito Page 11 of 16 2267772.8 13. Severability. The unenforceability, invalidity, or illegality of any provision, covenant, condition, or term of this Agreement shall not render the other provisions unenforceable, invalid, or illegal. 14. Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. If the City or Developer initiates any action at law or in equity to enforce or interpret the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs in addition to any other relief to which it may otherwise be entitled. If any person or entity not a party to this Agreement initiates an action at law or in equity to challenge the validity of any provision of this Agreement or the Project Approvals, the parties shall cooperate in defending such action. Developer shall bear its own costs of defense as a real party in interest in any such action, and shall reimburse the City for all reasonable court costs and attorneys’ fees expended by the City in defense of any such action or other proceeding. 15. Transfers and Assignments. 15.1. Right to Assign. Developer may wish to sell, transfer, or assign all or portions of its Property to another entity (each such other entity is referred to as a “Transferee”). In connection with any such sale, transfer, or assignment to a Transferee, Developer may sell, transfer, or assign to such Transferee any or all rights, interests, and obligations of Developer arising hereunder and that pertain to the portion of the Property being sold or transferred to such Transferee, provided, however, that no such transfer, sale, or assignment of Developer’s rights, interests, and obligations hereunder shall occur without prior written notice to City and approval by the City Manager, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed. 15.2. Approval and Notice of Sale, Transfer or Assignment. The City Manager shall consider and decide on any transfer, sale, or assignment within ten (10) days after Developer’s notice, provided all necessary documents, certifications, and other information are provided to the City Manager to enable the City Manager to determine whether the proposed Transferee can perform the Developer’s obligations hereunder. Notice of any such approved sale, transfer, or assignment (which includes a description of all rights, interests and obligations that have been transferred and those which have been retained by Developer) shall be recorded in the official records of Contra Costa County, in a form acceptable to the City Manager, concurrently with such sale, transfer, or assignment. ---PAGE BREAK--- Development Agreement for 1715 Elm Street, El Cerrito Page 12 of 16 2267772.8 15.3. Release Upon Transfer. Upon the transfer, sale, or assignment of all of Developer’s rights, interests, and obligations hereunder pursuant to Paragraph 15.1 of this Agreement, Developer shall be released from the obligations under this Agreement, with respect to the Property transferred, sold, or assigned, arising subsequent to the date of City Manager approval of such transfer, sale, or assignment; provided, however, that if any Transferee approved by the City Manager expressly assumes all of the rights, interests, and obligations of Developer under this Agreement, Developer shall be released with respect to all such rights, interests, and assumed obligations. In any event, the transferee, purchaser, or assignee shall be subject to all the provisions hereof and shall provide all necessary documents, certifications, and other necessary information prior to City Manager approval. 15.4. Developer’s Right to Retain Specified Rights or Obligations. Notwithstanding Paragraphs 15.1 and 15.2 and Paragraph 16, Developer may withhold from a sale, transfer, or assignment of this Agreement certain rights, interests, and/or obligations, which Developer shall retain, provided that Developer specifies such rights, interests, and/or obligations in a written document to be appended to this Agreement and recorded with the Contra Costa County Recorder prior to the sale, transfer, or assignment of the Property. Developer’s Transferee shall then have no interest or obligations for such rights, interests and obligations, and this Agreement shall remain applicable to Developer with respect to such retained rights, interests, and/or obligations. 16. Agreements Run With the Land All of the provisions, rights, terms, covenants, and obligations contained in this Agreement shall be binding upon the parties and their respective heirs, successors and assigns, representatives, lessees, and all other persons acquiring the Property, or any portion thereof, or any interest therein, whether by operation of law or in any manner whatsoever. All of the provisions of this Agreement shall be enforceable as equitable servitudes and shall constitute covenants running with the land pursuant to applicable laws, including, but not limited to, Section 1468 of the Civil Code of the State of California. Each covenant to do, or refrain from doing, some act on the Property hereunder, or with respect to any owned property is for the benefit of such properties and is a burden upon such properties, runs with such properties, and is binding upon each party and each successive owner during its ownership of such properties or any portion thereof, and shall be a benefit to and a burden upon each party and its property hereunder and each other person succeeding to an interest in such properties. ---PAGE BREAK--- Development Agreement for 1715 Elm Street, El Cerrito Page 13 of 16 2267772.8 17. Bankruptcy. The obligations of this Agreement shall not be dischargeable in bankruptcy. 18. Indemnification. Developer agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, and its elected and appointed councils, boards, commissions, officers, agents, employees, and representatives from any and all claims, costs (including legal fees and costs) and liability for any personal injury or property damage which may arise directly or indirectly as a result of any actions or inactions by the Developer, or any actions or inactions of Developer’s contractors, subcontractors, agents, or employees in connection with the construction, improvement, operation, or maintenance of the Project, provided that Developer shall have no indemnification obligation with respect to negligence or wrongful conduct of the City, its contractors, subcontractors, agents or employees or with respect to the maintenance, use or condition of any improvement after the time it has been dedicated to and accepted by the City or another public entity (except as provided in an improvement agreement or maintenance bond). If City is named as a party to any legal action, City shall cooperate with Developer, shall appear in such action and shall not unreasonably withhold approval of a settlement otherwise acceptable to Developer. 19. Insurance. 19.1. Public Liability and Property Damage Insurance. During the term of this Agreement, whenever Developer is conducting work on the Property pursuant to the Project Approvals, Developer shall maintain in effect a policy of comprehensive general liability insurance with a per-occurrence combined single limit of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) with a One Hundred Thousand Dollar ($100,000) self-insurance retention per claim. The policy so maintained by Developer shall name the City as an additional insured and shall include either a severability of interest clause or cross-liability endorsement. 19.2. Workers Compensation Insurance. During the term of this Agreement, whenever Developer is conducting work on the Property pursuant to the Project Approvals, Developer shall maintain Worker’s Compensation insurance for all persons employed by Developer for work at the Project site. Developer shall require each contractor and subcontractor similarly to provide Worker’s Compensation insurance for its respective employees. Developer agrees to indemnify the City for any damage resulting from Developer’s failure to maintain any such insurance. 19.3. Evidence of Insurance. Prior to issuance of any permits for the Project, including grading permits, Developer shall furnish the City satisfactory ---PAGE BREAK--- Development Agreement for 1715 Elm Street, El Cerrito Page 14 of 16 2267772.8 evidence of the insurance required in Sections 19.1 and 19.2 and evidence that the carrier is required to give the City at least fifteen (15) days prior written notice of the cancellation or reduction in coverage of a policy. The insurance shall extend to the City, its elective and appointive boards, commissions, officers, agents, employees, and representatives and to Developer performing work on the Project. 20. Notices. All notices required or provided for under this Agreement shall be in writing. Notices required to be given to the City shall be addressed as follows: City Manager City of El Cerrito 10890 San Pablo Ave. El Cerrito, CA 94530 Fax: (510) 864-7025 Email: [EMAIL REDACTED] Notices required to be given to Developer shall be addressed as follows: The Edward and Loretta Biggs Revocable Trust dated March 22, 2011 271 Valley Lane Fairfield, CA 94532 Fax: (707) 864-8150 A party may change its address by giving notice in writing to the other party. Thereafter, all notices shall be addressed and transmitted to the new address. Notices shall be deemed given and received upon personal delivery, or, if mailed, upon the expiration of 48 hours after being deposited in the United States Mail. Notices may also be given by overnight courier which shall be deemed given the following day, or by facsimile, which shall be deemed given upon verification of receipt if received before 5:00 p.m. on a regular business day or else on the next business day. The City will accept notice by email transmission, which shall be deemed given upon verification of receipt if received before 5:00 p.m. on a regular business day or else on the next business day. Developer may accept notice by email by providing notice to the City consistent with this section. 21. Agreement is Entire Understanding. This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding and agreement of the parties. ---PAGE BREAK--- Development Agreement for 1715 Elm Street, El Cerrito Page 15 of 16 2267772.8 22. Exhibits. The following documents are referred to in this Agreement and are attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full: Exhibit A Legal Description of Property 23. Counterparts. This Agreement is executed in three duplicate originals, each of which is deemed to be an original. 24. Recordation. The City shall record a copy of this Agreement within ten (10) days following the Effective Date. [Execution Page Follows] ---PAGE BREAK--- Development Agreement for 1715 Elm Street, El Cerrito Page 16 of 16 2267772.8 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed as of the date and year first above written. CITY OF EL CERRITO Scott Hanin, City Manager Attest: Cheryl Morse, City Clerk Approved as to Form: Sky Woodruff, City Attorney DEVELOPER The Edward and Loretta Biggs Revocable Trust dated March 22, 2011 By: Its: Trustee (NOTARIZATION ATTACHED) ---PAGE BREAK--- Exhibit A Legal Description of the Property The land referred to is situated in the State of California, County of Contra Costa, City of El Cerrito, and is described as follows: Lots 12, 13 and 14, in Block as designated on the map entitled “Map of Schmidt Village, Contra Costa County, California”, filed June 27, 1896, in Book C of Maps, Page 70, Contra Costa County Records. EXCEPTING THEREFROM: The Northeast 7.00 feet thereof, as described in the Deed to City of El Cerrito, recorded February 9, 1965, in Book 4801 Official Records of Contra Costa County, Page 144. (Being APN 502-112-038) ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6 Attachment 6 General Plan Map ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6 Attachment 7 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6 Attachment 8 ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item 6 Attachment 9 Page 1 of 9 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: March 19, 2014 I. SUBJECT Application: 6133 Applicant: Edward Biggs Location: 1715 Elm Street Zoning: RM Multi-family Residential General Plan: High-Density Residential APN: 502-112-038 Request: Planning Commission study session of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and necessary entitlements to consider the construction of 14 new dwelling units, the relocation 1 existing dwelling unit to be retained on site; 15 parking spaces; 1,548 square feet of private open space, and 2,874 square feet of common open space. Entitlements requested include: General Plan Amendment, Planned Development Development Agreement, Use Permit and Design Review. CEQA: A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project. II. BACKGROUND The project site currently contains four buildings: the main house, garage, well house, and shed, as well as other features characteristic of rural agricultural properties. The house was constructed in 1897 by Ambrose Rodoni and, based on information from the Contra Costa County Assessor, it is the third-oldest building in El Cerrito. The Rodoni house is a two-story, wood-frame, T-plan, Queen Anne–style dwelling with a compound hip and gable roof. Ambrose and Virginia Rodoni eventually purchased three adjoining lots, creating a larger landholding measuring 150 feet along Elm Street (originally Union Street) and 130 feet deep. This property, comprising nearly a half acre, was more than sufficient to create a compact “weekend ranch” capable of supporting their large family with homegrown produce, fruit, wine, and possibly livestock. A well and water pulled from the creek were used to irrigate the property and to provide drinking water, until the property was hooked up to municipal water in the 1940’s.The area immediately surrounding the property, historically a semirural area of small ranches and single-family dwellings, was built out during the post–World War II era as suburban development. A creek channel runs through the southern third of the property. The channel is straight-sided and bounded by dry-laid stone walls. The stone is of various types and is not uniformly dressed. The purpose of the walls appears to contain flows, stabilize the banks, and prevent erosion. The channel ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item 6 Attachment 9 Page 2 of 9 exits the property to the southwest, where it passes under a fence and enters a culvert beneath the adjoining property. The channel appears to have been an aesthetic and functional feature of the property and was probably used for irrigation long after the house was hooked up to municipal water in the 1940s. Site Description The project site is a fairly level, rectangular 0.42-acre lot located at 1715 Elm Street. The site slopes from a high point along the Elm Street frontage to the western boundary, representing a gentle 3 percent slope across the property. It currently includes a vacant two-story house built in 1897, a detached garage, a well house, and a shed.The site has fallen into disrepair and is now overgrown with weeds and unkempt landscaping. An open, rock-lined creek channel runs east–west across the site along the southern edge of the property approximately 20 feet from the house. The channel is approximately 4 feet deep and continues westerly onto the adjacent property in an open box culvert. The channel conveys stormwater runoff from upstream properties to the east. Vicinity The project site is primarily surrounded by residential neighborhoods. Elm Street and residential properties are to the east, residential properties and Hill Street to the north, residential properties and Liberty Street to the west, and a day care and Blake Street are located to the south. Summit K2, a public charter school, is approximately 700 feet to the northeast (due to open in fall of 2014). San Pablo Avenue, which is a major commercial corridor, and a Safeway store are a few blocks to the west. The El Cerrito del Norte BART station is approximately one-quarter mile to the northwest. III. DISCUSSION Development Proposal There are a number of aspects to the development that qualify it as a candidate for consideration as a Planned Development. First, the project is proposing to provide 14 new one and two bedroom dwelling units on a 0.42 acre site that is designated in the General Plan for high density. It also proposes to restore and relocate the existing historic single-family detached house on site to provide a fifteenth living unit and preserving an important historic resource. Finally, the project is proposing to keep the creek in place, thereby protecting the 115 foot long water course which is a tributary of the Baxter Creek and utilizing it as an amenity to the overall site. (Attachment 1, Plan set.) Pursuant to the Municipal Code: The specific purpose of the -PD Planned Development district is to provide for detailed review of development that warrants special review and deviations from the existing development standards. This district is also intended to provide opportunities for creative development approaches and standards that will achieve superior community design, environmental preservation and public benefit. The approval process for a Planned Development contains two steps. Planned Development District. An application for a Planned Development District rezone shall be reviewed at a public hearing by the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission shall make a recommendation to City Council. The City Council shall consider the recommendation of the ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item 6 Attachment 9 Page 3 of 9 Planning Commission at a public hearing, and act on the proposed Planned Development District rezone. Planned Development Use Permit. An application for a Planned Development Use Permit and associated Development Agreement shall be reviewed and considered by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission shall be the final decision authority on the Planned Development use permit (unless appealed). The Planning Commission shall make a recommendation on the Planned Development District and Development Agreement to the City Council. The City Council shall be the final decision authority on the Development Agreement. When considering the approval of a Planned Development Use Permit and District, the may city allow deviation from the minimum lot area, yard requirements, building heights, other physical development standards, and land use and density requirements of other zoning districts. This project also requires a General Plan Amendment because it proposes to exceed the maximum density for market rate housing allowed by 0.7 dwelling units per acre. The project proponent is requesting relief from specific development standards of the RM zone in order to retain the site’s assets while accommodating a level of development that is generally consistent with the General Plan. This project shall require relief from the following standards: 1. Setback from property line for the relocated historic building. 2. Maximum height of the proposed new construction. 3. Setbacks from creek from both the relocated historic dwelling and the proposed new construction. Restrictions regarding a bridge over the creek. 4. Required parking for vehicles. While requiring relief from some development standards, it exceeds the RM zone requirements for both common area and private open space and allows for ten percent less lot coverage than could have been allowed in this district. Development Standards Dev. Standards Required Proposed Setbacks Front 10 ft 10 ft Sides 5 ft; 10 ft for portions of building greater than 25 ft. in height 25ft on the west side, 3 ft. on the east side Rear 15ft 15 ft Height 35 ft 42 ft Parking 2/unit (21) 15 Lot Coverage 60 % max 53 % Distance Between Buildings 10 ft to 20 ft depending on location of primary rooms 10 ft to 20 ft ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item 6 Attachment 9 Page 4 of 9 Setback from Property Line of Relocated Historic Building The relocated historic building is proposed to be three feet away from the east side elevation. That distance is really a function of the width of the existing building and the location of the creek bank. The applicant has located the building as close as possible to the creek bank without compromising the building’s foundation or the bank of the creek. Staff determined this relief of two feet allows for an overall better design of the project, in that it is allows the historic building to fit into that quadrant of the site. Staff also notes that it is only the front section of the house that requires this relief as the remaining two thirds of the structure do conform to the five foot requirement. The day care building is over 20 feet away on the abutting lot, offering an unusually large buffer between the two uses. Therefore, staff believes that this relief will not adversely affect the livability of the adjacent day care. Maximum Height of Proposed New Construction Height shall be considered the vertical distance from the highest point of any structure to the ground level directly below. The maximum height allowed in the RM zone is 35 feet. As noted on page A- 11 of the plan set, the roof plate for this project is 33 ft tall. The additional 8 feet requested by the applicant is to allow for the mansard roof structure. This style of roof and overall height of the building is supported by staff for a number of reasons: Adjacency of Historical Building. Although not required as a strict condition of approval for this project, the Department of Interior Standards recommends that new buildings that share sites with historic buildings be designed to be compatible with the historic character of the historic building in terms of size, scale design, material, color, and texture. The applicant has designed the new construction to meet that recommendation, including a number of architectural features that reflect the style of the historic building. See page A-8 and A-10 of the plan set. The gable roof with brown asphalt shingle roofing is used on both primary buildings and the pitch is of each roof is also very similar. The applicant is also using horizontal siding in painted in neutral tones to support this goal. Staff believes a flat roof would not be preferable in this case. Impact of Height of New Construction Related to Neighboring Dwellings Staff reviewed the new construction to try to identify ways to reduce the height. The floor plates provide for a ten foot wide floor which is typical for new construction today. Staff would not recommend decreasing this measurement. Staff and the applicant discussed ways to modify the roof structure in a way that might decrease the related impact of shade on the adjacent dwellings. See Attachment 2, shadow studies. The studies illustrate that at 2:00 pm on December 21st (winter solstice when the sun is in lowest orbit or worst case in terms of building shade impact) the impact added by the addition of the Mansard roof is minimal as compared to a flat roof. The additional shade is to the front yards of the dwellings across the street, not to the buildings themselves. The municipal code does not have a specific standard for shade impacts of new construction. These type of shadow studies are common ways to compare different building style’s impact on the surrounding neighborhood. In this case, staff believes the additional height is not a detriment. Building Setback from the Creek and the pedestrian bridge One of the goals of the Creek Protection Overlay district is to preserve, enhance and restore natural drainage ways as parts of the storm drainage system, minimizing any alterations or structures within the natural stream channel and streambed. In support of that goal, the Creek Protection overlay (Chapter 19.14) prohibits placement of fill or any other obstruction and establishes a minimum 30- ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item 6 Attachment 9 Page 5 of 9 foot setback from the top of creek bank. The new construction is proposed to be 7 ft 8 in from the center line of the creek and the relocated historic building is proposed to be 5 ft 5 in away from the centerline. In addition, a footbridge is proposed to cross the channel to provide access to the shared common area. The project is proposing to maintain creek in its current location and ensure that it would not be filled or otherwise obstructed. Instead, it would be part of the common open space area of the development and would benefit from proposed adjacent riparian friendly landscaping. Although the project does not include the 30-foot setback from the channel pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 19.14, it is noted that in this case that the on-site surface water feature lacks characteristics of a natural riparian corridor and provides only marginal habitat value for wildlife that may include utilization by local birds and mammals, therefore the initial study concludes that there would be less than significant impacts to biological resources. Finally, it is only by granting relief from the setbacks, that the site can support the superior community design by accommodating the high density dwellings and the historic building’s retention and the benefit of the existing creek in its current location. Required Parking for Vehicles Parking is proposed to be located in a gated parking garage located below the units. The project proposes 15 new parking spaces and is requesting an exception to the City parking requirements, which requires 21 spaces. Section 19.24.050.B lists the findings needed for the Planning Commission to grant a Use Permit for a reduction in parking. In this case, staff believes that these following findings can be met: a. The use will be adequately served by the proposed parking due to the nature of the proposed operation; proximity to frequent transit service; transportation characteristics of persons residing, working or visiting the site; or because the applicant has undertaken a transportation demand management program that will reduce parking demand at the site. b. Parking demand generated by the project will not exceed the capacity of or have a detrimental impact on the supply of on-street parking in the surrounding area. c. The project furthers the implementation of land use or redevelopment goals of the El Cerrito General Plan more effectively than the project would if it met the parking standards of this Chapter. d. The site plan is consistent with the objectives of the zoning district, and incorporates features such as unobtrusive off-street parking placed below the ground level of the project with commercial uses above, or enclosed parking on the ground floor. The site plan illustrates that the parking area is enclosed on the ground floor and screened with a gate. By placing the parking below the proposed construction and not in a surface lot and reducing the amount down from 21 to 15, it allows for much more efficient use of the site making the land available for the new housing, the creek and considerable amount of open space; as well as the historic building. This style of parking tucked under the new construction is a preferred alternative in terms of urban design, basically by hiding the vehicles from public view while accommodating them on site. Finally, staff believes that the close proximity of the project site to the El Cerrito del Norte BART station located (within a quarter mile), several bus lines, and commercial uses will result in increased transit use and pedestrian activity that will reduce the demand for parking on site. ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item 6 Attachment 9 Page 6 of 9 As part of the work being completed in drafting the San Pablo Specific Plan, staff has identified a number of studies that support a parking standard of one space per unit for projects up to one half mile away from a BART station. For all of these reasons, staff supports the reduction in parking to one parking space per unit for residences. Open Space Required Proposed Common 1,602 sq ft 2,874 sq ft Private 100 sq. ft./ground floor unit, 50 sq. ft./upper level units 900 sq ft 1,548 sq ft Open Space Common Areas There are three common areas proposed in the plan. One is directly in front of the restored historic structure. It features a turf oval surrounded by a concrete walk that connects to the pedestrian entry along Elm Street. It also includes a low seat wall near the Elm Street entry. Plantings abutt this area on both the north and south sides, which include orchard trees, accent trees, orchard trees as well as shrubs and North of this larger area, there is another area that is proposed to include raised beds, accent trees and decomposed granite walking paths. The third common space adjoins this area and serves as the primary pedestrian access to the new primary structure. It also includes accent trees, shrubs and groundcovers and utilizes permeable brick pavers. A bridge is proposed across the creek to connect the entry area to turf area. Landscaping proposed in the common areas includes edible garden plantings (fruit trees and herbs), drought-tolerant plant species, and seasonal flower displays. Permeable brick pavers, crushed granite walkways, natural turf, and a stone seat-wall are features proposed at various locations to enhance the human scale of the garden. Two stormwater bioswales are proposed to mitigate storm runoff and would be vegetated with a combination of native grasses and wildflowers to provide additional natural habitat adjacent to the channel. See page L-1 of the plan set. Private Areas Each proposed dwelling unit has its own private space as well, either as a patio or balcony. See page A-6 of the plan set. Project landscaping along the perimeter of the site includes densely planted landscape setbacks around the proposed buildings to provide a buffer between the project and adjacent residential sites. Trellises and picket fencing are proposed along the street frontage to enhance the residential character of the street and separate public street space from private common open space. Both hard- and softscape outdoor areas are proposed for the use of residents and will be open to the street along the building frontage. ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item 6 Attachment 9 Page 7 of 9 General Plan Amendment The project site is designated in the El Cerrito General Plan for High Density Residential. The purpose of the High Density Residential land use designation is to provide opportunities for multi- family residential development in a well-designed environment at a density of 21 to 35 dwelling units per net acre. It is noted that the General Plan actually allows up to 72 units per acre in certain development scenarios, including senior housing with services. The General Plan also encourages denser housing close to the BART stations. This project will require the approval of General Plan Amendment to construct to its proposed density of 35.7 dwelling units per acre. Although denser than typically allowed in it’s General Plan designation, through the use of the Planned Unit overlay, the project proposes exceed the minimum required amount of open space, preserve the existing creek, and retain the historic main structure all currently on site. As discussed in the staff report and throughout this Initial Study, the slight increase in density beyond that allowed in the High Density Residential land use designation would not result in any significant physical environmental effects nor cause a detrimental effect to the surrounding neighborhood. From a neighborhood context, the use and development is compatible within the multiple unit residential development characteristics of the neighborhood. With the exception of the daycare use abutting the property to the south and Summit K2 School to the north, the neighborhood is generally residential in nature. The neighborhood is a blend of single family and high density residential. The site is the second largest parcel on the block, at over 18,000 square feet, while the average lot size in the immediate block is approximately 5,000 square feet. The proposed development will be compatible in density with several such developments in the neighborhood as outlined in the table below: Address No. of Units Lot Size (sq. ft.) No. of Stories Density 1715 Elm Street (Proposed Project) 15 18,468 3 35.7 du/ac 1749 Elm Street 5 9,225 2 23 du/ac 1715 Liberty St. 3 6,250 3 20 du/ac 1725 Liberty St. 10 12,500 2 (tuck under prk.) 32 du/ac 1740 - 1750 Liberty St. 16 23,136 3 30 du/ac 1751 Liberty St. 20 21,780 3 40 du/ac 1708 Lexington Ave. 13 13,000 3 33 du/ac The table shows that one parcel in the neighborhood was developed at the medium density level; while most were developed under the High Density-Residential use classification of the General Plan. Many structures are three stories high. Staff concludes that the proposed use, density, and overall project characteristics are consistent with the goals and policies outlined in the General Plan and the existing development characteristics in the area. CEQA Considerations An Initial Study and Mitigate Negative Declaration (MND) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) have been prepared for this project. Impacts identified in the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration as “Environmental Factors Potentially Affected” (page 12 of the MND) include: hazard and hazardous materials, utilities/service systems, cultural ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item 6 Attachment 9 Page 8 of 9 resources, hydrology/water quality, noise, air quality and geology. All factors are reduced to a less than significant level pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act with the implementation of mitigation measures. Staff, therefore, finds that although potential environmental impact may occur as a result of this project, mitigation measures will be incorporated into the project to reduce such impacts to less than significant. A Mitigation Monitoring Plan has been prepared for this project and will be incorporated as conditions of approval. General Plan General Plan Consistency The project is consistent with the vision in General Plan for this project site and surrounding properties. The site is located within the High Density Residential Land Use Classification of the General Plan. As a well-designed residential project implement many of the goals and policies of the General Plan. By preserving the Rodoni House, building design and landmarks; and the project’s proximity to BART addresses many of the polices related to alternative modes of transportation. The following is a list of the General Plan policies which staff has identified that the project will implement. This list is not meant to be exhaustive, but to clearly illustrate that the project is consistent with and will implement the General Plan. • LU1.3: Quality of Development • LU1.5: Suitable Housing • LU1.6: Various Housing Types • LU1.7: Maximum Density • LU5.5: Pedestrians, Bicycles, and Access • LU6.4: Water Conservation • CD1.2: Design Concept • CD1.3: High-Quality Design • CD1.5: Landmarks Preservation • CD 1.9: Building Design • CD3.3: Site Landscaping • CD3.12: Landscape Species • CD4.2: Building Articulation • CD4.5: Energy and Resources • CD5.1: Design Review Process • R2.2: Historic Preservation Design Review Board Preliminary Conceptual Review Comments Preliminary Conceptual Design Review is the Design Review Board’s opportunity to comment on items that are outside the DRB’s purview. These comments are forwarded to the Planning Commission for review. The DRB conducted Preliminary Conceptual Review on November 6, 2013. The Board commented that they generally supported the architecture and landscape proposed. ---PAGE BREAK--- 9 of 9 IV. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the members of the Planning Commission review the staff report, take public comment and offer guidance back to staff for the finalization of the report. Attachments: 1) Plans dated March 13, 2014 2) Shadow Studies 3) Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (on city website). ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 1 of 12 Agenda Item 6 Attachment 10 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: April 16, 2014 I. SUBJECT Application: 6133 Applicant: Edward Biggs Location: 1715 Elm Street Zoning: RM Multi-family Residential General Plan: High-Density Residential APN: 502-112-038 Request: Planning Commission consideration of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and necessary entitlements to consider the construction of 14 new dwelling units, the relocation 1 existing dwelling unit to be retained on site; 15 parking spaces; 1,548 square feet of private open space, and 2,874 square feet of common open space. Entitlements requested include: General Plan Amendment, Planned Development, Development Agreement, Use Permit and Design Review. CEQA: A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project. II. BACKGROUND This project was discussed at a study session before the Planning Commission at its last meeting. The previous staff report is included in this report as an attachment for reference. The findings and conditions of approval listed at the end of this staff report rely on the information from both staff reports. During the study session comments were received by staff from the public as well as members of the Planning Commission. This staff report will address these comments by theme. The main concerns stated include the proposed density, height, traffic and parking impacts. There were also concerns listed regarding the potential construction impacts on the neighborhood, particularly on the adjacent pre-school. Staff met with representatives of the pre-school and a representative of the development team on April 2, 2014. A summary of the result of this discussion is included in the report, as well. III. DISCUSSION The project is proposing to provide 14 new one and two bedroom dwelling units on a 0.42 acre site. It also proposes to restore and relocate the existing, historic single-family detached house on site to provide a fifteenth dwelling unit. Finally, the project is proposing to retain the creek in place, ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 2 of 12 Agenda Item 6 Attachment 10 thereby protecting the 115 foot long water course which is a tributary of Baxter Creek and utilize it as an amenity for the overall site. Below, staff has listed concerns stated at the study session and the meeting held on April 2, 2014. After each concern, staff has provided additional information in response to the concern. Density Concern: The project is too dense for its surrounding neighborhood. The project has a proposed density of 35.7 dwelling units per acre. The General Plan designation for this site is High Density (21 to 35 dwelling units/net acre) This designation is described as follows: The High Density residential land use category is intended to provide opportunities for multiple-family residential development in a well-designed environment. The range is intended to be located in areas where higher traffic volumes and buildings can be accommodated. These developments should be located outside of single-family residential communities, where services and transportation systems are adequate to serve the increased densities. The General Plan further states that while 35 dwelling units per acre is a practical limit, it does allow for up to 70 units per acre in this designation if the appropriate parameters are met. Allowing the General Plan Amendment of 0.7 is seen by staff to be a minor exception necessary to make the project feasible to build. It is important to note that removing one unit would not lower the building height as the floor plate on the third floor shows five units. Therefore, the height and shading impacts would not be alleviated by restricting the project to 14 units or 35 dwelling units per acre. The zoning designation for the subject property is RM Multi-family Residential. This district is described in the zoning ordinance as follows: To provide opportunities for multi-family residential development in a well-designed environment at a density of 21 to 35 dwelling units per net acre. Additional density can be achieved through the approval of density bonuses and other incentives. The RM district is intended to be located in areas where higher traffic volumes and buildings can be accommodated. These developments should be located outside of single-family residential communities, and where services and transportation systems are adequate to serve the increased densities. The RM district is further intended to achieve design compatibility between new multi-family development and surrounding less intensive residential neighborhoods by establishing physical development standards and performance standards. This neighborhood is generally intended for high density residential construction. The zoning district hosts an eclectic mix of single family, duplexes and multifamily homes. It is in the part of the zoning district that was envisioned to accommodate the higher density development. It is located on a street with a relatively high level of vehicle traffic, within a quarter mile of the BART station, the AC Transit Rapid Bus line and the Ohlone Greenway. While the proposed project is on the high end of the intended density for the neighborhood, it is staff’s belief that the project is in keeping with the spirit and intent of both its zoning and General Plan designations. With the proposed conditions of approval, staff believes that the appropriate performance standards will be in place. ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 3 of 12 Agenda Item 6 Attachment 10 Height Concern: The building is too tall and will cast too big a shadow on adjacent residences. In the zoning ordinance, height is defined as the vertical distance from the highest point of any structure to the ground level directly below. The maximum height allowed in the RM zone is 35 feet. As noted on page A-11 of the plan set (included at the March 19th meeting), the roof plate for this project is 33 ft tall. The additional approximately 9 feet requested by the applicant is to allow for the mansard roof structure. This style of roof and overall height of the building is recommended by staff for a number of reasons listed in the previous staff report. A summary of those reasons are included below with additional details added. Adjacency of Historical Building: Although not required as a condition of approval for this project, the Department of Interior Standards recommends that new buildings that share sites with historic buildings be designed to be compatible with the historic character of the historic building in terms of size, scale design, material, color, and texture. The applicant has designed the new construction to meet that recommendation, including a number of architectural features that reflect the style of the historic building. See page A-8 and A-10 of the plan set. The mansard roof with brown asphalt shingle roofing is used on both primary buildings and the pitch is of each roof is also very similar. The applicant is also using horizontal siding painted in neutral tones to support this goal. Staff believes a flat roof that could meet the maximum height would not be preferable in this case. Further, the applicant has stated that the mansard roof will screen a number of the possible roof mounted utilities that would otherwise be partially visible or require a tall parapet wall. For these reasons, the mansard roof as proposed is the preferred design. Impact of Height of New Construction Related to Neighboring Dwellings: Staff reviewed the new construction to try to identify ways to reduce the height. The floor plates provide for a ten foot wide floor which is typical for new construction today. Staff would not recommend decreasing this measurement. Staff and the applicant discussed ways to modify the roof structure in a way that might decrease the related impact of shade on the adjacent dwellings. (In practical terms, the possibility of shading the windows of the adjacent neighbors). The studies illustrate that at 2:00 pm on December 21st (winter solstice when the sun is in lowest orbit or worst case in terms of building shade impact) the impact created by the addition of the Mansard roof is minimal as compared to a flat roof. The additional shade is added to the front yards of the dwellings to the north and across the street, not to the buildings themselves. The one property that will have the potential to have additional shading impact to the residence is the property directly to the north. Staff measured the distance between the existing six foot solid wood fence and the dwelling on the neighboring property (based on GIS measurement). It is approximately seven feet away. The existing fence, based on its height and location is already shading the side of the existing building openings on that side much of the day, throughout the year. Although the municipal code does not have a specific standard for shade impacts of new construction. These types of (worst case scenario) shadow studies are common ways to compare proposed building’s impact on the surrounding neighborhood. In this case, staff believes the additional height is not a detriment to the surrounding neighborhood. Traffic and Parking Concerns: 1. The parking study was completed in 2009. Too much time has passed for it to be accurate 2. 2. The proposed construction will add significant additional traffic to a roadway that is already very congested. ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 4 of 12 Agenda Item 6 Attachment 10 3. The proposed parking is not realistic and it will cause additional vehicles to be parked on the street. Street parking is already challenging in the neighborhood due to the proximity of the BART station. A traffic impact study (TIS), which assumed development of 13 new units and rehabilitation of the existing house on the site (14 total units), was prepared for the project site in 2009. Kittelson & Associates reviewed the existing TIS to determine whether the analysis adequately reflects conditions that would occur with the project as proposed. Kittelson also conducted a trip generation analysis based on the latest data from the Institute of Transportation Engineers to verify assumptions made in the traffic impact analysis. Kittelson determined the project would result in 40 additional total daily trips and up to 5 additional peak-hour trips (total for AM and PM peak hours), which does not substantially differ from the 2009 analysis. Therefore, the key level of service (LOS) findings in the 2009 study are applicable to the current project despite changes in project land use, trip generation reference updates, analysis methodologies, and economic conditions (Kittelson 2013). Table A shows the results of the existing LOS analysis for signalized and unsignalized intersections in the area of the project. Data from three study intersections show current operations at acceptable levels of service during weekday AM and PM peak-hour time frames. As stated in the General Plan, if an intersection is functioning at LOS D or above, it is considered acceptable. Table B presents the results of the existing plus project intersection LOS analysis from the 2009 study, which shows the proposed project would result in no change to the peak-hour LOS and would have a minimal effect on delays. The addition of five vehicle trips during each peak hour would not reduce the level of service to below the City’s standard of LOS D (Kittelson, 2013). All of the study intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable levels of service during all peak-hour scenarios. TABLE A Intersection Existing Weekday AM Peak Hour Existing Weekday PM Peak Hour Delay LOS Delay LOS Signalized Elm Street/Hill Street/Key Boulevard 24.8 C 22.2 C AWSC Elm Street/Richmond Street/Blake Street 11.5 B 11.4 B Signalized Richmond Avenue/Potrero Avenue 13.9 B 13.6 B TABLE B Intersection Existing Plus Project Weekday AM Peak Hour Existing Plus Project Weekday PM Peak Hour Delay LOS Delay LOS Signalized Elm Street/Hill Street/Key Boulevard 24.8 C 22.3 C AWSC Elm Street/Richmond Street/Blake Street 11.6 B 11.4 B Signalized Richmond Avenue/Potrero Avenue 13.9 B 13.6 B Although Elm Street experiences a fair amount of traffic throughout the day, the traffic impact study completed for this project shows that when the amount of traffic is at its highest (peak travel time) ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 5 of 12 Agenda Item 6 Attachment 10 the key intersections around the project site operate at an acceptable level. This project is expected to generate a total 12 weekday AM peak-hour trips and 13 weekday PM peak-hour trips. The addition of this amount of additional vehicles is not considered a significant amount of new traffic by planning standards. Required Parking for Vehicles Parking is proposed to be located in a gated parking garage located below the units. The project proposes 15 new parking spaces and is requesting an exception to the City parking requirements, which requires 21 spaces. The site plan illustrates that the parking area is enclosed on the ground floor and screened with a gate. By placing the parking below the proposed construction and not in a surface lot and by reducing the amount down from 21 to 15, it allows for much more efficient use of the site making the land available for the new housing, the creek and considerable amount of open space; as well as the historic building. This style of parking tucked under the new construction is a preferred alternative with regard to urban design, which basically hides the vehicles from public view, while accommodating them on site. It also allows more of the existing square footage of the lot to be used for open space. In the parts of the city that are not served by transit, a new single family dwelling is required to have two spaces per dwelling unit. The zoning code allows any proposed multifamily development project located within one-quarter mile of a Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) station, to be reduced by 25 percent. It also allows additional reductions of required spaces through the granting of a Use Permit. There are a number of compelling arguments that support parking may be significantly decreased for new development located near transit (TOD). This project site is located within 800 linear feet or just under 1,400 ft by foot, of the BART station, the AC Transit Rapid line and the Ohlone Greenway. As part of the work being completed in drafting the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan, staff has identified a number of studies and reports that support a parking standard of zero to 0.5 parking spaces per unit for projects up to one-half mile away from a BART station. Please see recent links to studies included as Attachment 4. One of results of these studies is that people moving into new transit oriented development such as this project actually self select their residence based on its proximity to transit. However, one of the few points in opposition to allowing reduced rates of parking in new TOD development is the idea that if the projection is incorrect, the new residents will use the nearby on street parking. To ensure that this will not occur, a condition of approval has been added that will prohibit anyone living at this address to participate in the residential permit parking program. This will limit their use of street parking to four hours on Elm Street and many surrounding streets. That is the same amount of parking allowed any visitor to this neighborhood. Any street in the vicinity not currently participating but would like to take advantage of the program may do so by visiting the City’s website: http://www.el- cerrito.org/index.aspx?NID=753. ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 6 of 12 Agenda Item 6 Attachment 10 (GIS map of the streets participating in residential parking program.) With this added restriction in place, staff believes that this project will not create a detrimental impact on the neighborhood’s existing on street parking. Construction Related Issues Concern: During construction, the proposed project will have serious impacts to the neighborhood and in particular, the preschool located to the south of the project site. As a result of the testimony given on March 19th and the meeting with the preschool representatives and the agent for the development team; a number of conditions of approval have been added to the project. For the sake of analysis, these potential impacts are grouped again by theme. Air Quality In addition to the issues identified in the Initial Study, the community expressed concern related to the possible presence of asbestos and/or lead in the existing dwelling. These elements could become airborne during the scope of the construction/renovation. There was also general concern that there are contaminants found in the soil and that they too would become airborne during construction and grading. As a result, the following condition has been added to the project: Prior to the issuance of a building permit: 1. The Building Official shall confirm that a survey of lead-based paint (LBP) and asbestos- containing materials (ACMs) shall be completed and all identified ACMs and any loose or peeling LBP must be abated. During construction: ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 7 of 12 Agenda Item 6 Attachment 10 1. All mud, dirt and construction debris carried off the construction site onto adjacent streets shall be removed and cleaned daily. Failure to adequately sweep the streets may result in the City undertaking the effort at Applicant’s cost. 2. Dust control measures to minimize air quality impacts shall be implemented including: Noise a. Cover stockpiles of debris, soil, sand or other materials that can be blown by the wind. b. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials. c. Pave, apply non-potable water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at site. d. Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 5 mph. e. Install, maintain and replace sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. f. Minimize removal and replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. g. No grading between October 1st and April 15th unless the City Engineer has approved an erosion and sedimentation control plan. There was concern that the project’s construction would cause a substantial amount of noise due to the use of heavy equipment and pneumatic tools. The preschool asked that the tools and machinery be stopped from noon to 2:00pm to allow for nap time. The applicant did agree to try to limit noise by setting a lunch break from noon until 1:00pm. He also stated that he would agree to meetings between the person in charge of the construction and the personnel of the preschool at least once a month to ensure that communication between the two uses remains open. Staff added that the person in charge of the construction site should also be available to other members of the public. The following condition has been created: 1. Applicant shall submit a construction sign for approval by the Development Services Manager. The sign shall be made of a permanent material with professional lettering. The sign shall include the following information: the project name; name of the owner/developer; the name and phone number of a contact person, available at all times to address complaints and with the authority to control construction activity on the site; name and phone number of the contractor; and the approved hours of construction. The sign shall be posted at the time of placing temporary fencing and start of construction activity. 2. The applicant shall stipulate in the construction bid information for the project that every possible effort shall be made to have the construction site turn off all unnecessary heavy equipment, generators and power tools from noon until 1:00pm. General Safety and Communication Much of the concerns stated regarding this project relate to general safety of the site during construction and need to have the construction company and all neighbors to be able to communicate with each other. To that end, the following conditions have been added: 1. The applicant shall submit a site security and safety plan to assure that grading and construction activities are adequately secured during off-work hours. This will include the temporary construction fence. The height of the construction fence on the south side shall be twelve feet in height. The applicant shall create a notification procedure stating their plan to notify adjacent property owners and public safety personnel as to when major deliveries, detours and lane closures may occur. At a minimum, this notification plan will include a ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 8 of 12 Agenda Item 6 Attachment 10 written notice sent electronically as soon as possible to all neighbors that request such notification. The list of interested parties will be kept by the Community Development Department. 2. They will also meet in person with the operators of the preschool to go over any issues or concerns. 3. The applicant shall submit the location of construction staging areas for materials, equipment, and vehicles. 4. The applicant shall submit a parking management plan for all construction workers and their equipment to ensure that construction workers or construction equipment and vehicles do not occupy on-street spaces. 5. No construction shall take place on June 22, 2014 at the request of the preschool. Traffic Finally, there was considerable concern of the impact of truck traffic during construction. The following conditions have been added to address the issue: 1 Applicant shall submit a Traffic and Parking Management Plan for review and approval by the Public Works Director. The plan shall include any City restrictions and limitations on using certain local streets for construction traffic, proposed truck delivery and haul routes, parking arrangements for construction personnel, ingress and egress, noise, efforts to address street debris and dust control and proposed on-site staging and equipment/material storage areas. 2 Applicant, through its contractor, shall implement comprehensive traffic control measures as set forth in the approved Traffic and Parking Management Plan, including scheduling of major truck trips and deliveries to avoid peak hours (normally 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. to 6 (Staff believes these also are the peak pick up and drop off hours of the pre-school) Additional Entitlements As stated in the previous staff report, this project has a complex entitlement process. In addition to the Planned Development Use Permit which is the purview of the Planning Commission, it also has a Development Agreement, the creation of Planned Development District, as well as a General Plan Amendment. As staff and the applicant are still revising the Development Agreement, staff will be bringing to the Planning Commission for recommendation the second half of the necessary entitlements at an upcoming hearing. IV. CEQA An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) have been prepared for this project. All potential impacts identified are reduced to a less than significant level pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act with the implementation of mitigation measures. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) has been prepared for this project and has been incorporated into the conditions of approval. Many of these mitigations are listed in the staff report. Staff has chosen to highlight a few additional mitigations that are of listed in the mitigation monitoring plan below. Biological ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 9 of 12 Agenda Item 6 Attachment 10 The proposed project does have the potential to impact migratory birds, raptors, and bats. Trees on and adjacent to the project site may provide suitable nesting habitat for birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), as well as Sections 3503.5 and 3800–3806 of the FGC. In addition, the abandoned structures on-site have the potential to provide suitable nesting habitat for protected birds and roosting habitat for bats. Demolition of structures and removal of trees during construction activities could result in noise, dust, human disturbance, and other direct or indirect impacts to nesting birds and roosting bats on or in the vicinity of the project site. Therefore the following mitigations have been required: Survey for Migratory Birds. If clearing and/or construction activities will occur during the migratory bird nesting season (April 15–August 15), preconstruction surveys for nesting migratory birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist, up to 14 days before initiation of construction activities. If active nest(s) are identified during the preconstruction survey, a qualified biologist shall monitor the nest to determine when the young have fledged. monitoring reports, documenting nest status, shall be submitted to the City Planning Division until the nest(s) is deemed inactive. The biological monitor shall have the authority to cease construction if there is any sign of distress to a raptor or migratory bird. Survey for Active Raptor Nests. If construction activities will occur during the nesting season for raptors (January 15–August 15), all suitable raptor nesting habitat within 0.5 mile of the impacted area shall be surveyed for active raptor nests before construction activity commences. If an active raptor nest is located within 0.5 mile of the construction site, a no-activity buffer shall be erected around the nest while the nest is active to protect the nesting raptors. This buffer distance may be amended to account for nests that are not within the line of sight of the construction activity. Survey for Bird Nests in Structures. If demolition of on-site structures is proposed to take place during the migratory bird nesting season (April 15–August 15), a survey for nesting migratory birds swallows, phoebes) shall be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to demolition. Survey for Potential Bat Roosts. Demolition of on-site structures shall be preceded by a survey for bat presence. Structures being used by bats will not be removed until it has been determined that bats are no longer using the site or until demolition can be carried out without harming any bats. In addition, If the US Army Corps of Engineers identifies that the creek under their jurisdiction, the project applicant shall ensure that the project will result in no net loss of waters of the United States by providing mitigation through impact avoidance, impact minimization, and/or compensatory mitigation for the impact, as determined in the CWA Section 404/401 permits and/or 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement. This will be part of the Joint Aquatic Resource Permit (JARPA) process. Cultural The historic resource evaluation (VerPlanck, 2013) found that 1715 Elm Street appears eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 1 (Events) and Criterion 3 (Design/Construction), as a very early residential property in the city and as a property closely associated with El Cerrito’s Little Italy. The proposed project will relocate the house and rehabilitate the façade. Movement of the structure on site is an acceptable treatment of the historic structure if it results in the building’s preservation. However, there still remains a potential impact to cultural resources by the creation of the proposed project, itself. To mitigate the remaining impacts the following mitigation measures have been added: ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 10 of 12 Agenda Item 6 Attachment 10 Prior to any alterations of structures on the project site, the project applicant shall complete Historic American Building Survey (HABS) level documentation. Prior to occupancy of any structure on the project site, the applicant shall complete façade restoration of the historic structure, and salvage and reuse building materials and landscape features, as discussed in the evaluation. In addition, although it is not listed as a required mitigation, the applicant has volunteered to donate up to four thousand dollars to the City of El Cerrito towards the creation of up to two plaques that could be located on the front fence. The purpose of commemorative plaques would be to explain the history of the Rodini house as well as the history of the surrounding Little Italy neighborhood. Staff will work closely with the El Cerrito Historic Society to meet this goal and has added donation as a condition of approval. V. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL A Planned Development Use Permit shall only be granted if Planning Commission finds that the proposal as submitted, modified and/or conditioned conforms to all of the following criteria as well as to any other special findings required for approval of Use Permits in specific zoning districts: The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed development will be harmonious and compatible with and will not adversely affect the livability or appropriate development of abutting properties and the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed residential project will be a transit oriented development (TOD)with good urban design. It will add 13 new dwelling units to the neighborhood while preserving a historic structure and retaining the existing creek. It will not unduly shade surrounding dwellings or create unacceptable traffic or parking impacts; and as conditioned it will not adversely affect the livability of the abutting properties or neighborhood. The location and design of the proposal will provide a convenient and functional living, working, shopping, or civic environment that will be an attractive amenity for the City. The location and design of the project will provide a functional living environment that has good urban design. With the required vehicle parking tucked under the building, day-lighted creek and landscaped area and clear sightlines to the restored historic building, it will be an attractive amenity for the City. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of the district where it is located and conforms in all significant respects with the El Cerrito General Plan and with any other applicable plan adopted by the City Council. The project is consistent with the purposes of the district and conforms in all significant respects with the General Plan as conditioned; in that it consists of high density multifamily development that utilizes good urban design principles including reduced parking requirements, parking concealed under the new building, and a mix of unit types. It also preserves an important historic resource and protects an existing creek by including it within its landscaped area. The project will implement the following General Plan policies: LU1.3: Quality of Development, LU1.5: Suitable Housing, LU1.6: Various Housing Types, LU1.7: Maximum Density, LU5.5: Pedestrians, Bicycles, and Access, LU6.4: Water Conservation, CD1.2: Design Concept, CD1.3: High-Quality Design, ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 11 of 12 Agenda Item 6 Attachment 10 CD1.5: Landmarks Preservation, CD 1.9: Building Design, CD3.3: Site Landscaping, CD4.2: Building Articulation, CD5.1: Design Review Process and R2.2: Historic Preservation Development within the -PD district is demonstratively superior to the development that could occur under the standards applicable to the underlying base district, and will achieve superior community design, environmental preservation and/or substantial public benefit. In making this determination, the following factors shall be considered: Appropriateness of the use(s) at the proposed location. The proposed residential project will be a transit oriented development (TOD) located within 800 feet of a BART station. It will add 13 new dwelling units while preserving a historic dwelling and retain an existing creek. The mix of uses, housing types, and housing price levels. The proposed project offers a range of attached and detached dwellings on site. In the new construction is includes both one bedroom and two bedroom housing unit styles. All units’ prices will be set by the market. It is expected that the prices will reflect the different unit sizes. Provision of units affordable to persons and families of low and moderate income or to lower income households. While this is an important consideration, there was no feasible way to include a mandate to offer these units at an affordable price to persons and families of low and moderate income or lower income homes as defined by the State of California. Provision of infrastructure improvements. The existing infrastructure is sufficient to serve the proposed development as proposed. Provision of open space. While requiring relief from some development standards of the RM zone, it exceeds the zone requirements for both common area and private open space and allows for ten percent less lot coverage than could have been allowed in this district. Compatibility of uses within the development area. The use of the development area is exclusively residential. Quality of design, and adequacy of light and air to the interior spaces of the buildings. The design of the new construction has been designed to allow acceptable levels of light and air into the interior spaces of the building. As conditioned, it shall meet or exceed all requirements of the California Building Code. Overall contribution to the enhancement of neighborhood character and the environment of El Cerrito in the long term. ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 12 of 12 Agenda Item 6 Attachment 10 This project will contribute to the enhancement of the neighborhood character and the environment of El Cerrito in the long term in that it represents a balance of many of El Cerrito’s core values. It incorporates transit oriented development and good unban design with successful historic preservation and stewardship of an existing creek. Creativity in design and use of land. The project is proposing to provide 14 new one and two bedroom dwelling units on a 0.42 acre site that is designated in the General Plan for high density. It also proposes to restore and relocate the existing historic single-family detached house on site to provide a fifteenth living unit and preserving an important historic resource. Finally, the project is proposing to keep the creek in place, thereby protecting the 115 foot long water course which is a tributary of the Baxter Creek and utilizing it as an amenity to the overall site. VI. RECOMMENDATION A. Staff recommends approval of Planned Development Use Permit for Planning Applications 6133 as conditioned by the draft resolution in Attachment 1 and 2, adopting the Initial Study with mitigated negative declaration and mitigation monitoring and reporting that grants relief from: 1. Setback from property line for the relocated historic building. 2. Maximum height of the proposed new construction. 3. Setbacks from creek from both the relocated historic dwelling and the proposed new construction. Restrictions regarding a bridge over the creek. 4. Required parking for vehicles. Proposed Motions: 1. Move adoption of Planning Commission Resolution PC14-xx: a. Adoption an Initial Study and mitigated negative declaration and , and b. Adopting the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and 2. Move adoption of Planning Commission Resolution PC14-xx: a. Approving Planned Development Use Permits for relief from setbacks from property line and creek, a height reduction and reduction from parking. Attachments: 1) Draft Resolution to adopt the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. 2) Draft Resolution to approve the Planned Development Use Permits 3) Staff report dated March 19, 2014 4) Initial Study Document. (Appendices available on City Website). 5) List of Reports and Studies in support for the reduction of parking near mass transit services. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6 Attachment 10(C) ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 1 of 13 Agenda Item 6 Attachment 11 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: May 21, 2014 I. SUBJECT Application: 6133 Applicant: Edward Biggs Location: 1715 Elm Street Zoning: RM Multi-family Residential General Plan: High-Density Residential APN: 502-112-038 Request: Planning Commission consideration of a General Plan Amendment, Development Agreement, the creation of a Planned Development District including a Zoning Map Amendment to consider the construction of 14 new dwelling units, the relocation 1 existing dwelling unit to be retained on site; 15 parking spaces; 1,548 square feet of private open space, and 2,874 square feet of common open space. The Planning Commission is asked to make a recommendation regarding these entitlements to the City Council. CEQA: A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project. II. BACKGROUND In the City of El Cerrito, Planned Developments require both a legislative and quasi-judicial approval. This staff report analyzes the legislative component of the entitlement package, the General Plan Amendment, Development Agreement, the creation of a Planned Development District including a Zoning Map Amendment. The Planning Commission is being asked to make a recommendation on these entitlements to the City Council. As the members of the Commission know, the other component of the project’s entitlements, the Planned Development Use permit, was approved by the Planning Commission on April 16, 2014. That decision has been appealed to the City Council. Staff intends to bring this recommendation (positive or negative) and the appeal to the same City Council hearing on June 2, 2014. It is staff’s intent to have all the entitlements before the City Council at the same meeting to allow for a robust community discussion of the project. Please note that the previous staff reports are included as attachments to this report for reference. The findings listed at the end of this staff report rely on the information from this and previous staff reports. ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 2 of 13 Agenda Item 6 Attachment 11 III. DISCUSSION The project is proposing to provide fourteen new one- and two-bedroom dwelling units on a 0.42 acre site that is designated in the General Plan for high density residential uses. It also proposes to restore and relocate the existing, historic single-family detached house on site to provide a fifteenth living unit and preserve an important historic resource. Finally, the project is proposing to keep the existing creek in place, thereby preserving the 115 foot long water course which is a tributary of Baxter Creek and utilize it as an amenity for the overall site. The proposed condominium would be 14,311 square feet, with eleven two-bedroom units (approximately 1,064 sq ft each) and three one bedroom units. (869 square feet each). Below, staff has listed each of the entitlements for the Commission members review and consideration. General Plan Amendment The maximum density allowed within the High Density Residential designation is 35 units per acre for market rate housing. The project has a proposed density of 35.7 dwelling units per acre. The applicant has stated that they need the additional 0.7 density in order to make the project financially viable. Staff evaluated the request which is manifested as the fourteenth dwelling by reviewing the General Plan designation’s goals and the Zoning District’s purpose, the information included in the Initial Study, and by analyzing the surrounding neighborhood. The General Plan designation for this site is High Density Residential (21 to 35 dwelling units/net acre) This designation is described as follows: The High Density residential land use category is intended to provide opportunities for multiple-family residential development in a well-designed environment. The range is intended to be located in areas where higher traffic volumes and buildings can be accommodated. These developments should be located outside of single-family residential communities, where services and transportation systems are adequate to serve the increased densities. The General Plan Map illustrates the transition in the residential land uses in this area (Attachment The High Density designation runs in a band immediately adjacent to the Commercial/Mixed Use designation along San Pablo Avenue. It is flanked in most areas by thinner band of Medium Density designation. In the vicinity of the project, from Hill on the north, to Elm on the east, Blake on the south and the BART tracks on the west, the entire section of the city is High Density Residential. South of Blake, the area transitions down to Medium and Low Density Residential. One of the primary reasons for the higher intensity designation in this area is tied to its transit-rich surroundings. In addition to BART and San Pablo Avenue, staff notes the immediate adjacency of Hill Street and Richmond Avenue (Arterial Streets) as well as the Ohlone Greenway for bike and pedestrian travel. The General Plan has several policies that provide guidance towards this discussion. These include: Land Use 5.1 BART Station Areas. ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 3 of 13 Agenda Item 6 Attachment 11 Encourage higher densities and a mix of uses near the city’s two BART stations to take advantage of the transit opportunities they provide. This project is within a quarter mile of del Norte BART station. CD5.2 Planned Development. Encourage planned development projects and other techniques that cluster developments to create and preserve open spaces, views, and other amenities. The project utilizes the planned development techniques in order to preserve open space, historic features and the existing creek. Community Design 3.5 Creek Preservation. Where possible, preserve and restore natural drainage ways as parts of the storm drainage system, coordinating with recreational and trail use. R1.9 Development near Creeks. For development adjacent to creeks and major drainages, provide adequate building setbacks from creek banks, provision of access easements for creek maintenance purposes and for public access to creekside amenities, and creek improvements such as bank stabilization. Also protect riparian vegetation outside the setback. The 115 foot long tributary of the Baxter Creek is being preserved on site. All appropriate permits will be secured for work near the creek before the issuance of any building or grading permit. R2.1: Historic Preservation. Ensure that the remodeling and renovation of historic structures respects the character of the structure and its setting. R2.5: Public Awareness. Promote public awareness of significant resources through educational programs, tours, markers, and other appropriate measures. The project is preserving the historical dwelling unit on site and restoring the front façade to the Department of Interior Standards. The new proposed construction is being designed in a way that it is architecturally compatible with the historic dwelling. In addition, the applicant is funding two historical plaques that will inform visitors to the site of the Rodoni home and the historic context of the neighborhood’s “Little Italy”. Land Use 1.2: Multifamily Neighborhoods. Ensure that new development in multifamily neighborhoods supports, rather than detracts from the existing residential character of the area. Land Use 1.3: Quality of Development. Ensure that all multifamily or mixed-use development in residential areas addresses compatibility and quality of life issues. Land Use 1.5: Suitable Housing. Promote suitably located housing and services for all age groups within the city ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 4 of 13 Agenda Item 6 Attachment 11 Land Use 1.6: Variety of Housing Types. Encourage diverse housing types, such as live-work units, studio spaces, townhouses, co-housing, congregate care, and garden apartments. The project, along with the mitigations and conditions that staff has proposed, is found to be supportive and compatible to the residential character of its surrounding residential neighborhood. It consists of condominium style apartments with a mix of one and two bedroom units. There are three common areas in the present plan. One is directly in front of the restored historic structure. It features a turf oval surrounded by a concrete walk that connects to the pedestrian entry along Elm Street. Plantings abutt this area on both the north and south side, which include orchard trees, accent trees, orchard trees as well as shrubs and North of this larger area, there is another area that is proposed to include raised beds, accent trees and decomposed granite walking paths. The third common space adjoins this area and serves as the primary pedestrian access to the new primary structure. This area also includes accent trees, shrubs and groundcovers and utilizes permeable brick pavers. A bridge is proposed across the creek to connect the entry area to turf area. Each proposed dwelling unit has its own private space as well, either as a patio or balcony. Due to its proximity to the many services on the San Pablo Avenue corridor, it is well located for residents that prefer non- vehicular transit. Please see the additional discussion as part of the neighborhood context, below. CD1.3: High-Quality Design. Encourage higher-quality design through the use of well-crafted and maintained buildings and landscaping, use of higher-quality building materials, and attention to the design and execution of building details and amenities in both public and private projects. CD1.9: Building Design. A variety of attractive images will be achieved by encouraging a variety of building styles and designs, within a unifying context of consistent “pedestrian” scale along streets and compatibility among neighboring land uses. CD4.2: Building Articulation. Ensure that buildings are well articulated. Avoid large unarticulated shapes in building design. Ensure that building designs include varied building facades, rooflines, and building heights to create more interesting and differentiated building forms and shapes. Encourage human scale detail in architectural design. Do not allow unarticulated blank walls or unbroken series of garage doors on the facades of buildings facing the street or the Ohlone Greenway. CD5.1: Design Review Process. Continue design review and approval process for all new development, changes, additions, and modifications of existing buildings (except for single-family homes on existing lots). The architecture of the proposed fourteen unit structure has been designed to reflect but not mimic the existing historic single family dwelling. The roof pitch of the dormers is consistent with the roof pitch of the single family dwelling, and while the materials are not the same, the appearance of the materials as well as their colors appear to be consistent with the existing main building. The proposed building interacts with Elm Street by providing an interesting variation in form and mass (as opposed to monolithic). The elevations include vertical architectural elements and horizontal color bands. Balconies and trellises have been added to soften the interface with the street. This ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 5 of 13 Agenda Item 6 Attachment 11 project received positive feedback for the Design Review Board at its conceptual review in November, 2013. The zoning designation for the subject property is RM Multi-family Residential. This district is described in the zoning ordinance as follows: To provide opportunities for multi-family residential development in a well-designed environment at a density of 21 to 35 dwelling units per net acre. Additional density can be achieved through the approval of density bonuses and other incentives. The RM district is intended to be located in areas where higher traffic volumes and buildings can be accommodated. These developments should be located outside of single-family residential communities, and where services and transportation systems are adequate to serve the increased densities. The RM district is further intended to achieve design compatibility between new multi-family development and surrounding less intensive residential neighborhoods by establishing physical development standards and performance standards. The purpose of a Planned Development District is to provide opportunities for creative development approaches and standards that will achieve superior community design, environmental preservation and public benefit, in comparison to the underlying base district regulations. To that end, the City may allow deviation from physical development standards, if there is an over-arching community benefit. However, the spirit and intent of the underlying zoning district is still an important consideration. The project, along with the mitigations and conditions that staff has proposed, is in keeping with the district’s purpose in that it is well served by adjacent services and transportation corridors and achieves a design compatibility between taller, denser multifamily development existing along San Pablo Avenue and the smaller, less dense residential development to the east of the site in the Medium and Low Residential designations. The surrounding neighborhood context. The project is located on a street with a relatively high level of vehicle traffic, within a quarter mile of the BART station, the AC Transit Rapid Bus line and the Ohlone Greenway. The land uses of the existing neighborhood are an eclectic mix of single family dwellings, duplexes, a private school campus and multifamily dwellings all within a two-block radius of this site. ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 6 of 13 Agenda Item 6 Attachment 11 Address No. of Units Lot Size (sq. ft.) No. of Stories Density 1715 Elm Street (Proposed Project) 15 18,468 3 35.7 du/ac 1749 Elm Street 5 9,225 2 23 du/ac 1725 Liberty St. 10 12,500 2 (tuck under prk.) 32 du/ac 1740 - 1750 Liberty St. 16 23,136 3 30 du/ac 1751 Liberty St. 20 21,780 3 40 du/ac 1708 Lexington Ave. 13 13,000 3 33 du/ac The Table above illustrates some of the nearby multifamily developments. It is noted that many are three stories in height and similar in terms of density to the proposed project. Staff concludes that the proposed project is consistent with the range of uses in the nearby neighborhood. Creation of a PD Planned Development District The specific purpose of the PD Planned Development district is to provide for detailed review of development that warrants special review and deviations from the existing development standards. As stated above, this district is also intended to provide opportunities for creative development approaches and standards that will achieve superior community design, environmental preservation and public benefit, in comparison to development under district regulations. If approved by City Council, the Zoning map will be amended for the subject property to note a change to RM-PD. The project proponent is requesting variation from the specific development standards of the RM zone in order to retain the site’s environmental and historic community assets while accommodating a transit oriented development that is generally consistent with the General Plan. These four standards are described in detail, below. While requiring relief from some development standards, it exceeds the RM zone requirements for both common area and private open space and allows for ten percent less lot coverage than could have been allowed in this district. Development Standards Dev. Standards Required Proposed Setbacks Front 10 ft 10 ft Sides 5 ft; 10 ft for portions of building greater than 25 ft. in height 25ft on the west side, 3 ft. on the east side Rear 15ft 15 ft Height 35 ft 42 ft Parking 2/unit (21) 15 Lot Coverage 60 % max 53 % Distance Between Buildings 10 ft to 20 ft depending on location of primary rooms 10 ft to 20 ft ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 7 of 13 Agenda Item 6 Attachment 11 Setback from Property Line of Relocated Historic Building The relocated historic building is proposed to be three feet away from the east side elevation. The distance is really a function of the width of the existing building and the location of the creek bank. The applicant has located the building as close as possible to the creek bank without compromising the building’s foundation or the bank of the creek. Staff determined this relief of two feet allows for an overall better design of the project, in that it is allows the historic building to fit into that quadrant of the site. Staff also notes that it is only the front section of the house that requires this relief as the remaining two thirds of the structure do conform to the five foot requirement. This impact if further mitigated by the large common open space that is proposed for the front half of the lot. The private school’s main building is located over 20 feet away on its abutting lot line, offering an unusually large buffer between the two uses. Therefore, staff believes that this variation will not adversely affect the usability of the adjacent private school. Maximum Height of Proposed New Construction Pursuant to the El Cerrito Municipal Code, height is considered the vertical distance from the highest point of any structure to the ground level directly below. The maximum height allowed in the RM zone is 35 feet. As noted on page A-11 of the plan set, the roof plate for this project is 33 ft tall. The additional 8 feet requested by the applicant is to allow for the mansard roof structure. This style of roof and overall height of the building is supported by staff for a number of reasons: Although not required as a condition of approval for this project, the Department of Interior Standards recommends that new buildings that share sites with historic buildings be designed to be compatible with the historic character of the historic building in terms of size, scale design, material, color, and texture. The applicant has designed the new construction to meet that recommendation, including a number of architectural features that reflect the style of the historic building. See page A-8 and A-10 of the plan set. The mansard roof with brown asphalt shingle roofing is used on both primary buildings and the pitch is of each roof is also very similar. The applicant is also using horizontal siding painted in neutral tones to support this goal. Staff believes a flat roof that could meet the maximum height would not be preferable in this case. Further, the applicant has stated that the mansard roof will screen a number of the possible roof mounted utilities that would otherwise be partially visible or require a tall parapet wall. For these reasons, the mansard roof as proposed is the preferred design. Impact of Height of New Construction Related to Neighboring Dwellings: Staff reviewed the new construction to try to identify ways to reduce the height. The floor plates provide for a ten foot wide floor which is typical for new construction today. Staff would not recommend decreasing this measurement. Staff and the applicant discussed ways to modify the roof structure in a way that might decrease the related impact of shade on the adjacent dwellings. (In practical terms, the possibility of shading the windows of the adjacent neighbors). The studies illustrate that at 2:00 pm on December 21st (winter solstice when the period of daylight is the shortest or worst case in terms of building shade impact) the impact created by the addition of the Mansard roof is minimal as compared to a flat roof. The additional shade is added to the front yards of the dwellings to the north and across the street, not to the buildings themselves. Attachment 5. The one property that will have the potential to have additional shading impact to the residence is the property directly to the north. Staff measured the distance between the existing six foot solid wood fence and the dwelling on the neighboring property (based on GIS measurement). It is approximately seven feet away. The existing fence, based on its height and location is already shading the side of the existing building openings on that side much of the day, throughout the year. Although the municipal code does not have a specific standard for shade impacts of new ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 8 of 13 Agenda Item 6 Attachment 11 construction. These types of (worst case scenario) shadow studies are common ways to compare proposed building’s impact on the surrounding neighborhood. In this case, staff believes the additional height is not a detriment to the surrounding neighborhood. Building Setback from the Creek and the pedestrian bridge One of the goals of the Creek Protection Overlay district is to preserve, enhance and restore natural drainageways as part of the storm drainage system, minimizing any alterations or structures within the natural stream channel and streambed. In support of that goal, the Creek Protection overlay district (Chapter 19.14) prohibits placement of fill or any other obstruction and establishes a minimum 30-foot setback from the top of creek bank. The new construction is proposed to be 7 ft 8 in from the center line of the creek and the relocated historic building is proposed to be 5 ft 5 in away from the centerline. In addition, a footbridge is proposed to cross the channel to provide access to the shared common area. The project is proposing to maintain the creek in its current location and ensure that it would not be filled or otherwise obstructed. Instead, it would be part of the common open space area of the development and would benefit from proposed adjacent riparian friendly landscaping. Although the project does not include the 30-foot setback from the channel pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 19.14, it is noted in this case that the on-site surface water feature lacks characteristics of a natural riparian corridor and provides only marginal habitat value for wildlife that may include utilization by local birds and mammals, therefore the adopted initial study concludes that there would be less than significant impacts to biological resources. Required Parking for Vehicles The project proposes fifteen new parking spaces and is requesting an exception to the City parking requirements, which requires 21 spaces. The site plan illustrates that the parking area is enclosed on the ground floor and screened with a gate. By placing the parking below the proposed construction and not in a surface lot and by reducing the amount down from 21 to 15, it allows for much more efficient use of the site making the land available for the new housing, the creek and considerable amount of open space; as well as the historic building. This style of parking tucked under the new construction is a preferred alternative with regard to urban design, which basically hides the vehicles from public view, while accommodating them on site. In addition, staff believes that the close proximity of the project site to the El Cerrito del Norte BART station (located within a quarter mile), several bus lines, and commercial uses, will result in increased transit use and pedestrian activity that will reduce the demand for parking on site. As part of the work being completed in drafting the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan, staff has identified a number of studies that support a parking standard of one space per unit for projects up to one-half mile away from a BART station. Please see the recent studies included as Attachment 4. For all of these reasons, staff recommends the reduction in parking to one parking space per unit for residences. Development Agreement Section 19.14.020 of the El Cerrito Municipal Code states that Development Agreements are required as part of Planned Development Districts. Section 19.41.010 describe Development Agreements as follows: development agreements provide a greater degree of certainty by granting assurance that an applicant may proceed with development in accordance with policies, rules, and regulations in effect at the time of approval subject to conditions to promote the orderly planning of public improvements and services, allocate costs to achieve maximum utilization of public and private resources in the development process, and ensure that appropriate measures to enhance and protect the environment are achieved. A development agreement shall be a contract that is ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 9 of 13 Agenda Item 6 Attachment 11 negotiated and voluntarily entered into by the City and applicant and may contain any additional or modified conditions, terms or provisions agreed upon by the parties.” The City Attorney and legal counsel representing the applicant met and developed a Development Agreement for this project. See Attachment 6. The resulting legal document would take effect only after the passage of the the creation of the district by City Council. This is the legal framework that encompasses the entitlement details of the Planned Development District. It codifies the project entitlements for a term of ten years. It allows the property owner to sell the entitlement package to another party. IV. CEQA An Initial Study and Mitigate Negative Declaration (MND) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) were approved by the Planning Commission at the April 16, 2014 meeting. Impacts identified in the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration as “Environmental Factors Potentially Affected” included: hazard and hazardous materials, utilities/service systems, cultural resources, hydrology/water quality, noise, air quality and geology. All factors are reduced to a less than significant level pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act with the implementation of mitigation measures. The Mitigation Monitoring Plan has been incorporated in the conditions of approval. V. FINDINGS Required Findings for a General Plan Amendment. For a General Plan Amendment to be approved, Planning Commission must be able to make the following standard findings in order to recommend the action to the City Council: 1. The proposed amendment is deemed to be in the public interest. The proposed residential project will be a transit oriented development (TOD) located within 800 feet of a BART station (1,400 feet by foot). It will add 13 new dwelling units while preserving a historic dwelling and retain an existing creek. The balance of all these core values on the site is considered to be in the public interest. 2. The proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the rest of the General Plan and any implementation programs that may be affected. The project is consistent with the purposes of the district and conforms in all significant respects with the General Plan as conditioned; in that it consists of high density multifamily development that utilizes good urban design principles including reduced parking requirements, parking concealed under the new building, and a mix of unit types. It also preserves an important historic resource and protects an existing creek by including it within its landscaped area. The project will implement the following General Plan goals and policies: Land Use 1.2: Multifamily Neighborhoods, Land Use, 1.3: Quality of Development, Land Use 1.5: Suitable Housing, Land Use 1.6: Variety of Housing Types, Land Use 5.1 BART Station Areas, Community Design 1.3: High-Quality Design, Community Design 1.9: Building Design, Community Design 4.2: Building Articulation, Community Design 5.1: Design Review Process, Community Design 5.2 Planned Development. Community Design 3.5 Creek Preservation. Resources 1.9 Developments near Creeks, Resources 2.1: Historic Preservation, Resources 2.5: Public Awareness ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 10 of 13 Agenda Item 6 Attachment 11 3. The potential impacts of the proposed amendment have been assessed and have been determined not to be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. The proposed residential project will be a transit oriented development with good urban design. It will add 14 new dwelling units to the neighborhood while preserving a historic structure and retaining the existing creek. It will not unduly shade surrounding dwellings or create unacceptable traffic or parking impacts; and as conditioned it will not be detrimental to the abutting properties or neighborhood. 4. The proposed amendment has been processed in accordance with the applicable provisions of the California Government Code and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An Initial Study and Mitigate Negative Declaration (MND) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) have been approved for this project. All factors are reduced to a less than significant level pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act with the implementation of mitigation measures. The Mitigation Monitoring Plan has been incorporated in the conditions of approval. Required Findings for a Planned Development District. A PD district Zoning Amendment shall only be approved if all of the following findings are made: 1. The project meets all of the findings required for a zoning amendment pursuant to Chapter 19.40. a. The proposed amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of all elements of the General Plan, and any applicable specific plan; The project is consistent with the purposes of the district and conforms in all significant respects with the General Plan as conditioned; in that it consists of high density multifamily development that utilizes good urban design principles including reduced parking requirements, parking concealed under the new building, and a mix of unit types. It also preserves an important historic resource and protects an existing creek by including it within its landscaped area. The project will implement the following General Plan goals and policies: Land Use 1.2: Multifamily Neighborhoods, Land Use, 1.3: Quality of Development, Land Use 1.5: Suitable Housing, Land Use 1.6: Variety of Housing Types, Land Use 5.1 BART Station Areas, Community Design 1.3: High-Quality Design, Community Design 1.9: Building Design, Community Design 4.2: Building Articulation, Community Design 5.1: Design Review Process, Community Design 5.2 Planned Development. Community Design 3.5 Creek Preservation. Resources 1.9 Developments near Creeks, Resources 2.1: Historic Preservation, Resources 2.5: Public Awareness b. The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City; and The proposed residential project will be a transit oriented development (TOD) with good urban design. It will add 14 new dwelling units to the neighborhood while preserving a historic structure and retaining the existing creek. It will not unduly shade surrounding dwellings or create unacceptable traffic or parking impacts; and as conditioned it will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the City ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 11 of 13 Agenda Item 6 Attachment 11 c. The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An Initial Study and Mitigate Negative Declaration (MND) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) have been approved for this project. All factors are reduced to a less than significant level pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act with the implementation of mitigation measures. The Mitigation Monitoring Plan has been incorporated in the conditions of approval. d. Additional finding for Zoning Text amendments: The proposed amendment is internally consistent with other applicable provisions of this Zoning Code. The proposed amendment is a planned development district. It is consistent with applicable provisions of the zoning code including the purpose and intent of the Residential Mixed Use zone. e. Additional finding for Zoning Map amendments: The site is physically suitable (including absence of physical constraints, access, and compatibility with adjoining land uses, and provision of utilities) for the requested zoning designations and anticipated land. It will add 14 new dwelling units to the neighborhood while preserving a historic structure and retaining the existing creek. The site is 0.42 acres in size with a relatively level grade. It has direct access onto Elm Street and will be served by existing utilities in the area. It will not unduly shade surrounding dwellings or create unacceptable traffic or parking impacts; and as conditioned it will not adversely affect the livability of the abutting properties or neighborhood. 2. Development within the proposed -PD district is demonstratively superior to the development that could occur under the standards applicable to the underlying base district as indicated by either the conceptual plans submitted as part of the Planned Development application or the project submitted for consideration of a Planned Development Permit. This proje ct will is demonstratively superior to the development that could occur under the standards applicable to the underlying base district in that it represents a balance of many of El Cerrito’s core values. It is a transit oriented development; thereby reducing Vehicle Miles Traveled with good urban design; successful historic preservation and preservation of an existing creek. Had the project had been governed by the base district standards and strict interpretation of the creek protection ordinance, much of the open space would have been lost to surface parking spaces, the number of units would have to have been decreased due to the reduced building footprint, the building would two stories with a mansard roof, which would have greatly reduce the number of dwelling units. 3. The conceptual plans submitted with the application conform in all significant respects with the General Plan, and any applicable plan or policies adopted by the City Council. ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 12 of 13 Agenda Item 6 Attachment 11 The project is consistent with the purposes of the district and conforms in all significant respects with the General Plan as conditioned; in that it consists of high density multifamily development that utilizes good urban design principles including reduced parking requirements, parking concealed under the new building, and a mix of unit types. It also preserves an important historic resource and protects an existing creek by including it within its landscaped area. The project will implement the following General Plan goals and policies: Land Use 1.2: Multifamily Neighborhoods, Land Use, 1.3: Quality of Development, Land Use 1.5: Suitable Housing, Land Use 1.6: Variety of Housing Types, Land Use 5.1 BART Station Areas, Community Design 1.3: High-Quality Design, Community Design 1.9: Building Design, Community Design 4.2: Building Articulation, Community Design 5.1: Design Review Process, Community Design 5.2 Planned Development. Community Design 3.5 Creek Preservation. Resources 1.9 Developments near Creeks, Resources 2.1: Historic Preservation, Resources 2.5: Public Awareness Required Findings for Development Agreements. The Planning Commission shall determine whether or not the proposed development agreement: 1. Is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies, and land uses and programs specified in the general plan and any applicable specific plan; The project is consistent with the purposes of the district and conforms in all significant respects with the General Plan as conditioned; in that it consists of high density multifamily development that utilizes good urban design principles including reduced parking requirements, parking concealed under the new building, and a mix of unit types. It also preserves an important historic resource and protects an existing creek by including it within its landscaped area. The project will implement the following General Plan goals and policies: Land Use 1.2: Multifamily Neighborhoods, Land Use, 1.3: Quality of Development, Land Use 1.5: Suitable Housing, Land Use 1.6: Variety of Housing Types, Land Use 5.1 BART Station Areas, Community Design 1.3: High-Quality Design, Community Design 1.9: Building Design, Community Design 4.2: Building Articulation, Community Design 5.1: Design Review Process, Community Design 5.2 Planned Development. Community Design 3.5 Creek Preservation. Resources 1.9 Developments near Creeks, Resources 2.1: Historic Preservation, Resources 2.5: Public Awareness 2. Is compatible with the uses authorized in this Zoning Ordinance, and the zoning district in which the real property is located; The project is consistent with the purposes of the district and conforms in all significant respects with the General Plan as conditioned; in that it consists of high density multifamily development that utilizes good urban design principles including reduced parking requirements, parking concealed under the new building, and a mix of unit types. 3. Will provide substantial public benefits; It is a transit oriented development; thereby reducing Vehicle Miles Traveled with good urban design; successful historic preservation and preservation of an existing creek. All of these goals are public benefits to the City of El Cerrito. ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 13 of 13 Agenda Item 6 Attachment 11 4. Will be non-detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare of the Community; and The proposed residential project will be a transit oriented development (TOD) with good urban design. It will add 14 new dwelling units to the neighborhood while preserving a historic structure and retaining the existing creek. It will not unduly shade surrounding dwellings or create unacceptable traffic or parking impacts; and as conditioned it will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the City 5. Has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. An Initial Study and Mitigate Negative Declaration (MND) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) have been approved for this project. All factors are reduced to a less than significant level pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act with the implementation of mitigation measures. The Mitigation Monitoring Plan has been incorporated in the conditions of approval. VI. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the members of the Planning Commission review the staff report, take public comment and make a recommendation of approval for the General Plan Amendment, the Planned Development District and the Development Agreement. Attachments: 1) Draft Resolution 2) General Plan Map 3) Staff report dated March 19, 2014 4) Staff report and resolutions dated April 16, 2014 5) Shade Studies 6) Development Agreement 7) Plan Set 8) Initial Study Document. (Available on City Website). ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item 6 Attachment 12 CITY OF EL CERRITO PLANNING DIVISION RECEIVED APR 2 8 2014 r· - tl 325-,oo recQv J + 9t1 APPEAL April16, 2014 Planning Commission Vote For Use Permit of 1715 Elm Street Project Submitted to: El Cerrito City Council Submitted by: Concerned Residents of El Cerrito April 28, 2014 ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item 6 Attachment 12 CITY OF El CERRITO PLANNING DIVISION RECEIVED April 28, 2014 APR .28 Z0!4 El Cerrito City Council City Hall I 10890 San Pablo Avenue El Cerrito, CA 94530 RE: Appeal of Planning Commission Vote on 1715 Elm Street Condominium Project Dear Mayor Abelson and City Council Members, Please consider the following citizen appeal of the April16, 2014 Planning Commission approval (by a vote of 4-2) for the Development Use Permit of the proposed condominium project at 1715 Elm Street. This project proposes to build a new three­ story,14-unit multi-family housing structure and relocate an existing historic house on an 18,468 square foot site that is bisected by a long section of open creek. Voting against the Use Permit for this development, as proposed, should not be considered a vote against infill, density or Transit Oriented Development (TOD), which are clearly high priorities of the City and its citizens. A vote against this plan should, instead, be considered a vote for high quality infill/density/TOD projects that are context-sensitive, uphold all the values of our community and General Plan, and harmoniously transition to areas of different zoning designation. This goal can be achieved, but it is not represented by this plan, and we urge you to reject it, as proposed. There are many compelling reasons why the density of this development should be lower than maximum, let alone allowed to exceed the maximum. This is not an opposition of any development on the site. It is, rather, a strong statement of opposition to the development as proposed, on the grounds of both content and process. A summary of concerns shared by the many El Cerrito residents who attended the last two Planning Commission meetings to object to the current plan (as well as the 75 parents of students at Keystone Montessori School, the site's neighbor) is explained in this Appeal, in the following categories: • Excessive Variance Requests (page 3) • Misrepresentation of Site Size and Density by Developer (page 4) • Excessive Height (page 5) • Insensitivity to Zoning Transitions and Zoning Intentions of General Plan (page 6) • Inadequate and Technically Untenable Creek Setback (page 7) ---PAGE BREAK--- Appeal: 1715 Elm Street Condominium Project Page 2 of 15 Agenda Item 6 Attachment 12 • Inadequate Consideration of Valued Historical Structure (page 8) • Unstudied Environmental Hazards and Health Risks, Especially to Children (page 9) • Undesirable Parking, Traffic, and Noise Impacts (page 11) • Flawed and Misleading Analyses Presented by Developer (page 12) • Incomplete Study by El Cerrito Planning Staff (page 13) • Inadequate Deliberations by Planning Commission (page 13) In addition, there are two appendices, which detail: • List of Residents Supporting this Appeal (Appendix A) • Petition of Concern signed by parents of children attending Keystone Montessori School (Appendix B) El Cerrito should not waste the time of staff, the public and the Developer pursuing a technically untenable (based on state creek standards, see page 7) and unpopular plan when there is clearly standing to negotiate a better outcome at this time. Unsubstantiated claims that the project could not be economical at any lower density should not be accepted on the word of the Developer. It should be possible to propose smaller viable projects with more acceptable impacts. This appeal was specifically filed at the expense of the public to show an early and strong opposition to the plan as proposed. There will be further opportunities to review other titles of this development before the City Council, but it is in the best interest of all concerned to steer this process toward a better outcome as early as possible. Respectfully submitted by, Howdy Goudey Robin Mitchell Jason Hasley Keystone Montessori School I Linda Shehabi Dan & Henia Pines Julia Lucia -On behalf of the residents listed in Appendices A and B CITY OF EL CERRITO PLANNING DIVISION RECEIVED APR 28 Z014 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appeal: 1715 Elm Street Condominium Project Page 3 of 15 Agenda Item 6 Attachment 12 Excessive Variance Requests CITY OF EL CERRITO PLANNING DIVISION RECEIVED APR 2 8 2014 The project seeks several variances as well as an Amendment to the General Plan. On page 11-12 of the "Draft Initial Study and Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration" (known hereafter as "Study") prepared by the Developer, Pacific Municipal Consultants (PMC), under "Requested Entitlements" the Developer seeks six separate variances from El Cerrito Municipal Code. The large number of variances the Developer is seeking should give immediate pause to the leadership of El Cerrito and is a huge red (lag that this project is not in line with the CitVs established values and intentions for growth. The rules the Developer wants to circumvent are in place to maintain aesthetics, preserve and enhance the environment, honor and preserve our historical assets, promote safety, and responsibly manage traffic in heavily traveled thoroughfares. The fact that the project requires these variances is evidence that the proposed development is not in harmony with the values and intentions of our city. The requested variances are listed below. Our response and challenge to these variances are referenced within this Appeal document. 1. Height Standards for Residential Districts, (Municipal Code Chapter 19.06): Developer is asking to allow a 42-foot building height, which exceeds the 35-foot height limit. 2. Setback Standards for Residential Districts (Municipal Code Chapter 19.06): Developer is asking for a 5-foot setback for a building of 42 feet in height, instead of the required 10 foot minimal setback for buildings 25 feet or higher. 3. Setback Standards for the Creek Protection Overlay District (Municipal Code Chapter 19.12): Developer seeks to reduce the creek setback from the required 30 feet on either side of the waterway to less than 4 to 6 feet from its banks. 4. Parking Requirements for Off-Street Parking (Municipal Code Chapter 19.24): Developer is asking to reduce the required number of parking spaces from 21 to 15. 5. Density Standards (Municipal Code Chapter 19.06): Developer calculates the projected density of the project to be 35.7 du/ac, and asks for an exception based on the .7 du/ac above the 35 du/ac maximum. (Note: our Appeal challenges this density calculation. See page 6. General Plan Amendment, required since the proposed density exceeds 35 density units per acre. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appeal: 1715 Elm Street Condominium Project Page 4 of 15 Agenda Item 6 Attachment 12 (.;JTY OF EL CERRITO PLANNING DIVISION RECEIVED APR .2 8 2ot4 Misrepresentation of Site Size/Density by Developer By our calculations, the Developer has misrepresented the size of the site, which affects the reported density and pushes the request for the "Density Standard" variance (item 5, page 3) way beyond the claimed 35.7 density units per acre. The building plan is for a 14-unit, three-story condominium built on an 8,955 sq. ft. footprint (not 18,465 square feet, as represented by the Developer). Due to the presence of a creek running through the middle of the site and the preservation of the existing historical structure, the Developer cannot claim that the 14-unit structure is utilizing the entire site, nor even a majority of the site. Therefore, the density numbers represented by the Developer are incorrect and misleading. The proposed density of living space represented by the Developer is 35.7 du/cu, which could seem to justify a slight relief from current standards and a General Plan Amendment, as it is only a difference of.7 du/cu. However, the REAL density of/iving space is 73.6 du/cu when calculated based on a building footprint that is roughly half of the site size. This is more than double what is permitted by the City. In comparison, according to the Planning Commission's staff report, on Elm Street (between Blake Street and Cutting Blvd), the only building that is not single family or residential duplex, 1749 Elm Street, only has five units and is two stories high, built on a 9,225 square foot lot with a density of 23.0 du/cu. Comparison Table 1715 Elm St. {proposed project) 1749 Elm St. (comparable nearby site) Building Lot Size (sq. ft.) 8,955 9,255 Number of Units 14 5 Number of Stories 3 2 Height in Feet 42 26 Density (du/ac) 73.6 23.0 From this table, it is evident that the proposed development is too far out of line with the size and density of even the largest residential unit in the immediate area. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appeal: 1715 Elm Street Condominium Project Page 5 of 15 Agenda Item 6 Attachment 12 Excessive Height and Diminished Neighborhood Quality CITY OF EL CERRITO PLANNING DIVISION RECEIVED APR 28 2014 Simply stated, the proposed 42-foot structure is just too tall for the existing residential neighborhood and would severely diminish the visual quality, livability, and human scale of the street. The immediate vicinity, though zoned RM, consists of only one- and two-story structures, the majority of which are single-family homes. This is a street that has mostly 12-foot-high houses and duplexes, and a couple of 20- to 24-foot structures. The proposed development is almost twice as high as the highest existing structures on the block, and there are no nearby open lots that will soon be developed similarly to match the extreme height of the proposed structure. This is grossly out of scale and character with the surroundings and will be the only such similarly sized structure in the visual vicinity for the foreseeable future. Furthermore, allowing such a deviation from the character ofthe existing neighborhood goes against provisions outlined in our city's zoning ordinance: An excerpt from the zoning ordinance (19.06.010 Purpose): "The specific purposes of residential districts (including RM) are to: A. Preserve, protect, and enhance appropriately located areas for residential land use, consistent with the City's General Plan. Prohibit incompatible uses. Preserve and enhance the character of existing residential nejg_hborhoods by limiting encroachment of new buildings and activities that are out of scale and character with the surrounding uses." This development, with its grossly excessive height, clearly does NOT "preserve or enhance the character of (the) existing residential neighborhood" and does NOT "limit the encroachment of new buildings and activities that are out of scale and character with the surrounding uses." ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item 6 Attachment 12 Insensitivity to Zoning Transitions and Zoning Intensions of General Plan This 1715 Elm Street property is in the RM (multi-family residential) zone, which invites density levels of 21-35 units per acre. However it is on the border of RD (duplex residential), which specifies 11-20 units per acre zoning. The neighboring RD zone is quite small with modest-sized buildings and the adjoining RS (single family) zone dominates the character of the neighborhood in the area east of Elm Street. The specification of a density range in these zoning districts supports the intention of context-sensitive judgments of the feasible density for a particular project and site, and not an unquestioning acceptance of maximum density, or beyond.It should be a standard consideration to place higher scrutiny on a development that proposes the maximum, or beyond maximum density, on the boundary of a zoning district. The goals of managing an orderly and harmonious density transition suggest that the minimum density for a particular zone should be considered in the context of the maximum density of the neighboring zone when evaluating boundary lots. On the consideration of the boundary location alone, the density of this property should be closer to 20 units/acre, and certainly even lower when considering both the special accommodations to adequately protect the creek and historic structure. Even if there is going to be a lesser creek setback infringement and less dramatic impacts on the historic structure, there needs to be substantial mitigation measures conducted either on-site or elsewhere to compensate for the detrimental environmental and historically significant impacts proposed by this project. Regarding Density, the General plan states: "The High Density residential land use category is intended to provide opportunities for multiple-family residential development in a well-designed environment. The range is intended to be located in areas where higher traffic volumes and buildings can be accommodated. These developments should be located outside of single-family residential communities, where services and transportation systems are adequate to serve the increased densities." We submit that this particular development, even though located within the RM zone, does not uphold the General Plan's requirement to site larger developments outside of single-family residential communities, which predominate this portion of the Elm Street neighborhood. CITY OF El CERRITO PLANNING DIVISION RECEIVED APR 28 Z014 Appeal: 1715 Elm Street Condominium Project Page 6 of 15 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appeal: 1715 Elm Street Condominium Project Page 7 of 15 Agenda Item 6 Attachment 12 A Note About Transit-Oriented Development CITY OF EL CERRITO PLANNING DIVISION RECEIVED APR 2 8 2014 There are several references to Transit Oriented Development (TOD) in the staff reports about the property. While the site is close to the Del Norte BART station (0.4 miles on foot),it should be clear that it is not in TOM (transit-oriented mixed use zoning) and does not qualify for special conditions associated with that zoning. Inadequate & Technically Untenable Creek Setback The severe creek setback variance (to less than 4-6 feet (rom the bank, rather than the intended 30 feet}, is an unacceptable compromise of the strong environmental leadership embodied in the El Cerrito Creek ordinance. It is disingenuous to portray this excessive erosion of our creek standard as "protecting" or "saving" the creek; it will only diminish the potential to restore this rare natural resource, and it is a serious violation of the strong environmental standards of El Cerrito, as well as higher state authorities regarding the modern stewardship of creeks. It is also worth noting that protection of "sensitive environmental areas and features, including" "creeks" was called out in the Residential Zoning Ordinance, 19.06.010.D. Additionally, based on comments from experts very familiar with this permit process, it is highly likely that rejection of the JARPA (Joint Aquatic Resource Permit Application} permit would be the outcome if the plan moveslorward as proposed. It would be a serious embarrassment for El Cerrito if the State Water Resources Control Board and other higher agencies review and reject the project's JARPA permit, upholding the State's high standard for creek protection and true creek restoration, when El Cerrito gave permission to gut the intention of it's own creek ordinance and did not stand up for a better outcome for the creek at all. If the proposal to move the house across the creek is approved, it should only be allowed by following a route into the street and back onto the property on the other side of the creek. The house should not be transported directly over the open portion of the creek as this may inadvertently cause damage to the bank and/or include too much temporary construction on the banks, which could cause erosion and be detrimental to the creek. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appeal: 1715 Elm Street Condominium Project Page 8 of 15 Agenda Item 6 Attachment 12 Inadequate Consideration of Valued Historical Structure CITY OF EL CERRITO PLANNING DIVISION R!:CEIVED APR 28 2014 While it is admirable that the plan does not propose to demolish the historic 1897 house, diminishing it in the back corner of the lot with excessively tight setbacks, dwarfed under a towering, massive new development, is not consistent with respecting the unique historic resource of this home and the tantalizing hint at El Cerrito's bucolic past that it represents, as it presently stands. The historic structure, as well as the present and future citizens of El Cerrito, deserves a much better outcome. From the April19 staff report: "the Department of Interior Standards recommends that new buildings that share sites with historic buildings be designed to be compatible with the historic character of the historic building in terms of size, scale, design, material, color, and texture." The massive size of the proposed new development undeniably does not match the historic character of the historic building in terms of size and scale. The 115-plus-year­ old house is being squeezed into the back corner of the lot to accommodate a greater­ than-maximum number of new units. This does not honor the historic building but rather diminishes it greatly, and should not be the justification for a substantial variance on height. The design of additional 8-foot decorative roof elements, though consistent with the style of the historic building, adds additional height and exacerbates the already out-of­ scale size relative to the historic building. Why not consider alternative configurations (including fewer units) that truly complement and maintain the historic treasure that all parties agree is worth preserving? There was dismissal of three stories with a flat roof, but no consideration of two stories with the proposed decorative roof, which would be more consistent with the guidelines and the historic accommodations. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appeal: 1715 Elm Street Condominium Project Page 9 of 15 Agenda Item 6 Attachment 12 • • r-a.. v1-nn1 1v PLANNING DIVISION RECEIVED APR 2 8 2014 Unstudied Environmental Hazards and Health Risks, Especially To Children The 1715 Elm Street site is located within mere inches of a thriving preschool (Keystone Montessori} that is home to 60+ children, ages 18-months to 6 years, as well as a staff of 10+ adults, from 7:00am to 6:00pm every weekday. The construction of this project and relocation of the existing historic building will present numerous unknown environmental hazards and health risks to the children who attend this preschool. Children are considered "sensitive receptors", individuals who have a significantly increased sensitivity of exposure to contaminants based on their age and/or health. The immediate and long-term impacts of potential exposure to environmentally hazardous substances during construction has not been adequately studied by the Developer or the Staff, especially with respect to children, whose developing systems inherently present a higher risk for illness due to toxic exposure. The project, as proposed, should not go forward due to the unstudied environmental hazards and potential health risks presented to children, which, in turn, presents a liability risk for the City of El Cerrito. If the project does go forward, our concerns are as follows: • The Study (pages 21-22 "Construction Emissions" and pages 24-25} concedes that there will be increases in toxic emissions, which can be a nuisance and health hazard. The report asserts that emissions will not exceed standards, but unless there is daily monitoring, no one will know. The Planning Commission should require the Developer to conduct on-site air monitoring. In addition, the Commission should seek to discover if the daily maximum emission limits in the Study take into account exposure to children or are they based on adults? The Planning Commission should ensure that steps are taken to prevent exposure not only for the health and safety of the children, but to ensure the Developer is not creating a situation that could result in liability for the City of El Cerrito. • In the Study (page 25 "Mitigation Measures"), there is no plan for how compliance will be maintained. The Study puts forth proposals of what the Developer hopes to accomplish, such as making sure equipment is in tune and that certain types of equipment and fuel are used. But there is no plan as to how the community can be assured these steps will be taken. • The Study states that enforcement and monitoring will be done by the Planning Division, but it does not seem appropriate that the City should have to provide this ---PAGE BREAK--- Appeal: 1715 Elm Street Condominium Project PagelO of 15 Agenda Item 6 Attachment 12 CITY OF EL CERRITO PLANNING DIVISION RECEIVED APR 2 8 2014 oversight. The Developer should pay for a monitoring of the site and make the results of the monitoring publicly available. Such monitoring should include air monitoring for toxins and particulate matter, daily inspections to ensure all equipment is in tune, using low-emission diesel, and limiting idling time as described in the mitigation measures. Further, these mitigation measures alone will not ensure children are not exposed to dust and toxic emissions. There is no plan to water the site to mitigate dust, install barriers to ensure dust does not travel to Keystone, or other neighboring properties, and no mention of air quality monitoring. • The Study (page 55 "Mitigation Measures") concedes that there is potential for excess release of greenhouse gas but in the mitigation section there is no mitigation measure that is definite. All of the suggested measures are followed with "to the maximum extent possible". What is to prevent Developer from saying none ofthe steps were possible? The Planning Commission should ensure the development would not result in the release of greenhouse gasses. • The Study (page 56. 8.c- "Hazards to a School") The Planning Commission should be very concerned that the Developer chose to mark this section as uless Than nificant Impact". Keystone Montessori, a preschool, is only inches away from this construction site and the potential for a whole host of toxic substances, including asbestos and lead, to be emitted from the site to which children will be exposed is significant. Dust, gas fumes, thinners, solvents, pesticides as well as emissions from heavy­ duty construction equipment are among the toxic substances that could be emitted on a daily basis. This presents a significant liability for both the City and the Developer and if the project is approved there must be significant and substantial steps taken to ensure the health and safety of children who could be exposed to these substances. • The Study states that to the extent any demolition occurs which could release lead or asbestos, all surrounding neighbors should be notified. Both substances are highly toxic and even more so to children. This creates a significant potential liability to the City. In addition to all ofthe above concerns, the Planning Commission should also ask the following questions of the Developer: • Will toxic materials such as fuel, oil, thinners or solvents be stored on site? • What precautions will be taken to ensure they are not off-gassing fumes? • Will there be fire hazard reduction measures taken? ---PAGE BREAK--- Appeal: 1715 Elm Street Condominium Project Page11 of 15 Agenda Item 6 Attachment 12 Undesirable Parking, Traffic and Noise Impacts CITY OF EL CERRITO PLANNING DIVISION RECEIVED APR 2 8 2014 Among of the greatest concerns of the nearby neighbors, as well as El Cerritans who travel Elm Street as a main thoroughfare multiple times daily, are the development's parking and traffic impacts. The residents presenting this Appeal believe that assertions made in the Study document are unsupported by evidence and require additional scrutiny by the City. The Developer should be required to demonstrate there would be no negative impacts from these variances. Examples that should be requested include an updated traffic study, pollution study, and noise study. Regarding traffic, (Study, page 75}, the data relied on in the Study is now 4.5 years old. The report states that the development will not alter traffic or flow of vehicles. However, the Developer is seeking a variance from 21required parking spaces to 15. This reduction in required off-street parking automatically means increase in street parking and traffic. Additionally, the traffic study was conducted following a severe recession and the traffic intensity and volume has very likely increased since then. In addition there are related questions that are not addressed in the Study such as: • What about guests/visitors; Where will they park? • There could also be a total of 35 additional people living at the spot; what if each has a car? As Elm Street and the surrounding intersections can already become very congested during morning and afternoon commute hours, these are legitimate questions that the Developer will need to answer. The Developer is claiming in the Study (page 69- Population and Housing Impact) that there is no significant impact presented by the development. The Planning Commission should question why there is no data supporting the conclusions in this section. The Developer is changing the space from a single, unoccupied two-bedroom house to a multi-story building that will house up to 35 people. That is a significant increase and the direct impacts from this change must be documented first. Regarding Noise, (addressed on page 67 of the Study}, the Planning Commission should ask the following of the Developer: • Where is the support for the position that noise will not increase? Was a study conducted? • As the Developer is seeking a variance to allow more people and cars than normal, what evidence is there that this will not result in additional noise? ---PAGE BREAK--- Appeal: 1715 Elm Street Condominium Project Page12 of 15 Agenda Item 6 Attachment 12 Flawed and Misleading Analyses Presented by Developer CITY OF EL CERRITO PLANNING DIVISION RECEIVED APR 2 8 2014 While it is appreciated that the issue of shading impacts of the 40-plus-foot-tall building, has been voluntarily included in this process, the shading analysis presented is limited and misleading, and is too quick to dismiss the serious consequences of shading on neighboring properties. The shading analysis preferentially presents a time of day, 2:00pm, as being the worst­ case scenario, when it is clearly not the worst case. "Worst-case" peak shading for the property to the north is between the hours of 10:00am and 2:00pm Pacific Standard Time, not 2:00pm and later when the shadow is cast on the street and beyond. At the April16 Planning Commission meeting, updated images from the shading study were shown, indicating that at about 11:00am, there was nearly full coverage of the neighboring building. The April19 staff report following the April 16 Planning Commission meeting continues to contain a shallow and dismissive consideration of the shading issue, even though updated shading images were presented at that meeting. It is understood that these shading considerations are voluntary, but it is important to be clear and avoid misleading statements like "The existing fence, based on its height and location is already shading the side of the existing building openings on that side much of the day, throughout the year." (which was put into the record as part of the April 16th staff report and is factually inaccurate). If this structure is built, the home to the north will lose several hours of direct sun on their south windows and roof every day for nearly half the year. In this climate, the winter season shading caused by this proposed development has a real impact on passive solar heat gain, resulting in diminished thermal comfort and increased heating energy use, costs and carbon emissions for the occupants. Furthermore, the strong shading on the roof makes it not viable to install on-site renewable power generation with photovoltaic solar panels. Both of these compromises of solar energy access diminish the utility of the neighboring home and prevent the opportunity to take measures identified by the City's Climate Action Plan to reduce carbon emissions. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appeal: 1715 Elm Street Condominium Project Page13 of 15 Agenda Item 6 Attachment 12 CITY OF EL CERRITO PlANNING DIVISION RECEIVED Incomplete Study by El Cerrito Planning Staff APR 28 ZOt4 The City has not demonstrated an appropriate defense of the merits of bypassing its own strong zoning and creek ordinances. These ordinances have been put in place for a reason: to make it difficult to bypass them. There is no automatic right for a developer to demand the highest, in fact exceed the highest, density when there are rare existing site considerations (such as a creek and historical structure) that are important to the community. Furthermore, the public input and this Appeal have identified countless questions for the Staff, numerous unsubstantiated assertions, and glaring concerns that need to be thoroughly addressed by additional data, Developer response, and updated studies before a Use Permit should be approved. Inadequate Deliberations by Planning Commission At the April16 meeting, the Planning Commission did not satisfactorily deliberate on justifying the merits of the specific variances versus the impacts, and the Staff did not provide rich, substantiated arguments supporting their recommendation. Instead, most often, serious potential impacts were waved off by the Planning Commissioners and Planning Staff as insubstantial on the basis of assertion rather than fact. Residents' extensive concerns (presented in over an hour of public testimony by roughly 15+ individuals representing many more residents) were virtually ignored by the Planning Commission during deliberations, even though in the City's Strategic Plan places a high value on "Ethics and Integrity (that): Keeps the public's interest always in mind and; Has the courage to say no." Additionally, we believe the "Findings For Approval''jSectiQI'l_J[. Qftb_4 J- - 1.1_S1<1_ff Report) were NOT met, specifically the following requirements: • "The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed development will be harmonious and compatible with and will not adversely affect the livability or appropriate development of abutting properties and the surrounding neighborhood." Our position: They are NOT harmonious with and WILL most definitively affect the livability of abutting properties and the surrounding neighborhood. • "The location and design of the proposal will provide a convenient and functional living, working, shopping, or civic environment that will be an attractive amenity for the City." ---PAGE BREAK--- Appeal: 1715 Elm Street Condominium Project Page14 of 15 Agenda Item 6 Attachment 12 CITY OF EL CERRITO PLANNING DIVISION RECEIVED APR 2 8 20t4 Our position: The grossly excessive scale of this structure will NOT be an attractive amenity for the City, rather, it will stick out like a sare thumb and detract from the quality af the neighborhood. • "The proposal is consistent with the purposes of the district where it is located and conforms in all significant respects with the El Cerrito General Plan and with any other applicable plan adopted by the City Council." Our position: the proposal DOES NOT conform in all significant respects with the El Cerrito General Plan as well as municipal zoning ordinances, as evidenced by the extreme number of requested variances and proposed General Plan Amendment. • "Development within the -PO district is demonstratively superior to the development that could occur under the standards applicable to the underlying base district, and will achieve superior community design, environmental preservation and/or substantial public benefit." Our position: the development will NOT achieve superior community design due to its exaggerated density in the context of the immediate environment, oversize scale for the given site, and incompatibility with neighborhood character. It also bypasses significant environmental preservation practices, and creates little to no public benefit, except to a single Developer, who is not even a resident of El Cerrito. ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item 6 Attachment 12 Conclusion CITY OF EL CERRITO PLANNING DIVISION RECEIVED APR 28 2014 The preceding document presents countless, well-reasoned and well-supported arguments for the City Council to pause and re-examine the proposed high-density condominium development at 1715 Elm Street. Reasons which include livability, environmental stewardship, historical preservation, health and safety, and potential legal liabilities. But to conclude, it seems appropriate to reference a comment made by Commissioner Hansen during deliberations for this use permit. Before submitting her "yes" vote,she said something to the effect of, "it's not perfect, but it's better than nothing." In fact,the proposed project for the 1715 Elm Street site is far worse than nothing. Having this oversize development will affect the residents of our unique and beloved city for decades to come. It will impair our ability to preserve, and possibly one day restore, a valued environmental feature in our midst, the creek. It will dishonor a rare historical structure. It will cause neighbors an immediately diminished quality of life and residents who travel Elm Street daily aggravations and time waste. It could possibly cause many children of our community severe health issues. And, most importantly, it will forever extinguish the opportunity to create something truly unique and visionary on a rare open lot in our city. The interests of the residents of El Cerrito must be put ahead of the interests and profit of a single developer. We have a unique and desirable city in which to develop appropriately-scaled, well-considered projects. If this particular developer's vision does not meet our needs, he can easily sell the lot and pass on the opportunity to another builder who is more compatible with our values and visions. It is the hope of the residents submitting this Appeal that we can strive for more than an "it's better than nothing" attitude. We can do better. And we deserve better. Thank you for your consideration. ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item 6 Attachment 12 Appeal: 1715 Elm Street Condominium Project PagelS of 15 ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item 6 Attachment 12 ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item 6 Attachment 12 APPENDIX A CITY OF EL CERRITO PLANNING DIVISION RECEIVED APR .28 2014 El Cerrito residents supporting Appeal to City Council on Planning Commission's Apri116, 2014 Approval for the Use Permit of the 1715 Elm Street Condominium Project: Julia Lucia Mark Lucia Jason Hasley Howdy Goudey Robin Mitchell [PHONE REDACTED] [EMAIL REDACTED] [EMAIL REDACTED] [EMAIL REDACTED] [EMAIL REDACTED] [EMAIL REDACTED] Linda Shehabi/Keystone Montessori Staff Dan Pines Henia Pines Tom Panas [EMAIL REDACTED] [EMAIL REDACTED] [EMAIL REDACTED] [EMAIL REDACTED] Ed Perea Jennifer Moran Lesly lbser Hank lbser Mary Carl Skye Christensen Chung Chi Tsai Mei L. Chien John Chang Anne Wenstad Jeff Go Jeanene Nehira Eugene Go Lotus Go Mario Canepa Juanita Canepa Bob Wong Longming Wu Eva Wu Tony Huynh Jack K. Huynh Chun Chu (Susan) Jack Huynh Benson R. Quan Christine F. Quan Steven J. Chung Lynn K. Chung Franklin Leong Daisy Leong [PHONE REDACTED] [PHONE REDACTED] [PHONE REDACTED] [PHONE REDACTED] [PHONE REDACTED] [PHONE REDACTED] [PHONE REDACTED] [PHONE REDACTED] [PHONE REDACTED] [PHONE REDACTED] [PHONE REDACTED] [PHONE REDACTED](c) [PHONE REDACTED] [PHONE REDACTED] [PHONE REDACTED] [EMAIL REDACTED] 7135 View Ave, EC 1706 Elm Street, EC 1706 Elm Street, EC [EMAIL REDACTED] [EMAIL REDACTED] [EMAIL REDACTED] [EMAIL REDACTED] [EMAIL REDACTED] [EMAIL REDACTED] [EMAIL REDACTED] [EMAIL REDACTED] [EMAIL REDACTED] [EMAIL REDACTED] [EMAIL REDACTED] Appeal: 1715 Elm Street Condominium Project Appendix A ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item 6 Attachment 12 KEYSTONE MONTESSORI SCHOOL 6639 BLAKE ST. EL CERRITO, CA 94530 TEL: [PHONE REDACTED] WWW.KEYSTONEMONTESSORI.ORG APR 28 2014 March 19th, 2014 Dear El Cerrito Planning Commission, Keystone Montessori School has been in El Cerrito since 1981, and since 1994 at the existing site. 6639 Blake Street is next door to the proposed project. 31 years in El Cerrito! Keystone is "home" during the day to close to 60 young "sensitive receptors" as they were called in the report between the ages of 18 months - 6 years old most of whom are El Cerrito residents. This is our opinion of the proposed plan. They are trying to fit too many people and cars into too small of a space which will create a variety of hazards including traffic, noise pollution, and emissions from automobiles. While this may normally just be a nuisance for residents the fact that this development is in-between two schools, one of which is a pre-school, is significant. There are serious short-term hazards from construction such as exposing small, developing. children to a myriad of toxic substances all of which have the potential for causing significant physical and developmental problems. There are also the long-term hazards created from the significant increase in residents and their associated vehicles. Street parking and residential traffic will both be impacted and for an area frequented by small children this creates a clear safety hazard. There will also be increased noise and pollution which will negatively impact the students. Due to our long history with the city of El Cerrito and the fragility of our students, we request that the study include several requirements during construction before the project is approved: 1. That a temporary protective barrier of at least 12 feet in height be built between the properties to prevent particle rocks, dirt, toxic building materials, etc from flying into our play yard. Q2. That the hours of construction include 12:00-2:00 "quiet time" when our children are nappii1g when all construction work will be limited to no use of power tools/ machines/ bulldozers, etc. 3. When the children are outside in the play yard all work with tractors, bulldozers, heavy equipment, etc south of the creek to our mutual fence should wait until the children go back inside. (Hours of yard use as well as calendar attached) Keystone can only continue to provide El Cerrito with an exceptional daycare program if these few limits can be made to construction. i - Director We the families at Keystone are agreeing with the letter above by signing the petition below. ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item 6 Attachment 12 CITY OF EL CERRITO PLANNING DIVISION RECEIVED APR 9. A ?nfLl Date Printed Name Signature , Address 1 2 3 6 c .c7 :kv1t C bt - -e 10--r. cz.t c)SI-J: t;.,·i\·1c < t>f!t' - ti{FLL({i-J:Od 7 ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item 6 Attachment 12 .c J VI"' l;t::HRITO PLANNING DIVISION RECEIVED APR 2 8 Z014 Date Printed Name Signature Address 11 f2o£

n-i+u ?