Document elcerrito_gov_doc_77538c05c9

AGENDA BILL Agenda Item No. 6(B) Date: September 22, 2014 To: El Cerrito City Council From: Melanie Mintz, Interim Community Development Director Yvetteh Ortiz, Public Works Director Margaret Development Services Manager Subject: San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Adoption and Environmental Impact Report Certification ACTION REQUESTED Conduct a public hearing and upon conclusion, take the following actions related to the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan: • Adopt a resolution certifying the Environmental Impact Report and approving the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; • Adopt a resolution amending the General Plan, to assure consistency between the Specific Plan and General Plan; • Adopt a resolution approving the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan; • Introduce by title, waive any further reading beyond the title and approve an ordinance revising the Zoning Map to incorporate the San Pablo Avenue Plan Area; and • Introduce by title, waive any further reading and approve an ordinance revising the Municipal Code to incorporate the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan regulations. BACKGROUND The proposed San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan (Plan) has been underway since 2007 when the former El Cerrito Redevelopment Agency and the City of Richmond undertook an effort to develop a shared vision for the future of San Pablo Avenue. (Redevelopment Agency Resolution No. 563) The Plan has aimed to achieve and develop clear and consistent guidelines to stimulate investment and achieve economic and community vitality along San Pablo Avenue. The Plan before City Council tonight represents the culmination of seven-plus years of community input and responds to issues identified by City Council at its March 7 and November 21, 2011 and November 15, 2013 study sessions to develop a Plan which focused on implementation and was reflective of contemporary land use planning strategies along transit-corridors. These ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Page 2 strategies include increased heights and densities, lower parking minimums, and a flexible approach to mixed-use development, e.g. allowing ground floor residential in most cases. The Plan before Council tonight incorporates a Form Based Code, a Complete Streets Plan, an Infrastructure Analysis, technical appendices and is accompanied by an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The collection of elements was authorized at the April 2, 2013 City Council meeting (Resolution 2013-17) and is funded by a combination of sources, including the City’s Municipal Services Corporation, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) Measure J/Transportation for Livable Communities and Measure J/Transit Oriented Development Access Improvements. The Multimodal Capital Improvement Program, authorized at that time, will be completed after adoption of the Plan to further implementation of the various multimodal improvements (e.g. bicycle, vehicle, transit and automobile transportation infrastructure improvements) that have been identified as needed within ½ mile of both BART stations to support the goals of the Plan. The Plan incorporates best practices and community input received through this planning effort and parallel regional and local planning processes. It directly implements a number of city goals, including: 1. 1999 General Plan Strategic Framework which includes development of San Pablo Avenue Corridor Design Guidelines and revitalization strategies for the Del Norte, Midtown and El Cerrito Plaza area among its most important strategies for accomplishing the vision for El Cerrito. 2. 2006 Economic Development Action Plan which specifies creating a consistent vision of El Cerrito’s transition to an urban lifestyle along San Pablo Avenue to attract high quality development and sustain a strong sense of community as key to achieving the City’s Economic Development goals. 3. 2013 Strategic Plan which identified the following goals and strategies: a. Attracting and maximizing opportunities for new/expanding businesses as a strategy for achieving long-term financial sustainability b. Reimagining underdeveloped and underutilized properties and encouraging use of alternative modes of transportation as strategies to deepen a sense of place and community identity c. Implementing the City’s Climate Action Plan and reducing vehicle-miles traveled through improved transit-oriented form to foster environmental sustainability 4. 2013 Climate Action Plan which identified encouraging more compact, higher density infill development along transportation corridors and increasing the local ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Page 3 economic base as key Sustainable Community Goals to reduce overall vehicle miles travelled in the City. The Plan also directly responds to and implements the goals of SB375, the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 and Plan Bay Area, the Bay Area’s Sustainable Community Strategy, which both call for integrating transportation and land-use planning to help the State achieve its greenhouse gas emissions targets. Finally, the Plan shares goals with the City of Richmond’s draft Livable Corridors Form Based Code which articulates the City of Richmond’s vision for creating walkable mixed-use neighborhoods consistent with its General Plan. Although the EIR before Council tonight incorporates the impacts of anticipated development in the City of Richmond within the Plan area, regulatory changes on parcels that fall within the City of Richmond will take place through Richmond’s amendment and adoption of its proposed Livable Corridors Form Based Code. Parallel Planning Efforts: In addition to directly implementing adopted City goals, the Plan is informed by and works in tandem with parallel planning and capital projects underway, including the Citywide Urban Greening and Active Transportation Plan, several phases of the I-80/Central Avenue Interchange Improvements Project, improvement to multimodal and intermodal transportation facilities at both BART stations funded through the City’s One Bay Area Grant and BART’s Caltrans Planning grant, and upcoming Safe Routes to Transit and Priority Development Area planning grants which include development of ongoing parking and transportation management strategies. The multiple planning projects underway aim to assure that the Plan’s elements are well-coordinated with partner agencies, such as AC Transit, BART, Caltrans and neighboring jurisdictions and that Plan implementation will be complemented by parallel efforts to improve overall livability for existing and future El Cerrito residents. Furthermore, the multiple planning efforts underway, and especially the proposed San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan will catalyze private investment in the area and continue to make El Cerrito competitive for outside funding to fully implement the Plan vision. During the planning process, Community Development staff hosted a workshop with developers and architects to assure the proposed Plan’s provisions achieved its goals of encouraging practical and market-friendly development. Public Engagement: Public engagement throughout the planning process has included surveys, informal interaction with staff and decision-makers, the San Pablo Avenue Advisory Committee which met from 2007-2011, and numerous public meetings and Planning Commission, Design Review Board and City Council study sessions as documented in the Plan. Public comment on the draft Plan and draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was taken June 3-July 21, 2014. Responses to DEIR comments have been incorporated in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). Public comment was also received in relation to the September 4, 2014 Planning Commission consideration of the proposed Plan and entitlements and in relation to the item before Council tonight. Comments received regarding tonight’s requested action prior to September 15 are included as Attachment 7. Comments received afterwards will be distributed to City Council at the dais. ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Page 4 Planning Commission: In addition to commenting on and being involved in previous drafts of the Plan, the Planning Commission received project updates and held study sessions on July 17 and November 20, 2013, and July 16, 2014. At its September 4 meeting, the Commission voted 5-1 to recommend the proposed Specific Plan and associated resolutions and ordinances be adopted by City Council. Twenty members of the public spoke at that meeting, representing a range of opinions on the Plan. A number of minor changes to the Plan were requested by the Planning Commission prior to their vote, which are included in an updated Errata (Attachment Interagency-Interdepartmental Coordination: Throughout the development of the proposed Plan, the City has met with outside agencies and internal City departments to assure the Plan’s provisions met shared goals and were feasible. An ongoing Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), consisting of the City’s Police and Fire departments, Caltrans, the cities of Albany and Richmond, AC Transit, BART, Bike East Bay (formerly the East Bay Bicycle Coalition) and Contra Costa Public Health Department has been convened and will continue to meet throughout the Plan’s implementation. Below is a concise summary of each of the Plan’s elements and the EIR, as well as a summary of key issues raised during the public comment period. More detail about each of the Plan’s elements can be found in the Plan itself. Form Based Code: The Form Based Code (FBC) provides development regulations and design guidelines for new development and changes to the built environment on San Pablo Avenue. The code aims to provide clarity to those wishing to improve their properties along the Avenue while promoting quality development that meets the City’s goals for high-quality development that promotes walkability, livability and economic vitality. The Code includes several subsections, including: 1. Code Intent, Use and Administration: Includes summaries of the regulating plan and development standards; land use regulations; approval procedures and public noticing requirements. 2. Regulating Plan: Establishes the transect zones for the Plan Area which establishes building heights, parking requirements, open space and land use requirements; and Street Types which in tandem with the transect zones regulates building placement, form, articulation and character. 3. Development Standards: Illustrates and establishes building placement, form, articulation and character including sidewalk requirements, set back requirements, pedestrian and vehicle access requirements etc. 4. Supplemental Development Standards: Specifies site layout requirements and guidelines, building articulations standards, frontage types, parking, signage and landscaping standards, guidelines for sustainable design elements and public art and regulations and intent as it applies to cultural and historic resources. ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Page 5 5. General Public and Private Open Space Standards: Establishes public, private and common open spaces requirements for non-residential and residential projects and provides guidelines to incentivize types of open space. Complete Streets: The Complete Streets Plan provides general direction for the design of the public right-of-way within the Specific Plan area, as well as, identifies a range of specific improvements to help transform the area into a transit-friendly, walkable and bikeable corridor while at the same time addressing congestion hot-spots for automobile traffic. In order to design for and track success of the Complete Street Plan over time, new multimodal level of service (MMLOS) metrics have been developed. The current level of service (LOS) methodology employed by the City considers only automobile delay and therefore neglects to account for the multimodal impacts of land use development and infrastructure improvement projects. The existing right-of-way and traffic volumes vary along San Pablo Avenue, and therefore the Plan calls for varying improvements throughout the length of San Pablo Avenue. For example, in some of the more constrained right-of-way widths along San Pablo Avenue, such as the Downtown and Uptown section, it will not be possible to provide optimum facilities for all travel modes. When trade-offs are necessary, the Complete Streets Plan prioritizes adding transit and pedestrian infrastructure over new bicycle infrastructure. This is due to the corridor’s importance as a transit route and as the City’s main commercial and mixed-use corridor where walking between various uses and to transit are key. While transit and pedestrian modes are prioritized in the Plan, bicycle facilities are not allowed to remain with low service levels if measures to improve them exist such as in Midtown where buffered bicycle lanes can be accommodated while maintaining acceptable levels of service for all other modes including automobiles. As a part of this process, staff has convened a Technical Advisory Group (TAG) to discuss our Complete Streets strategies. The TAG has consisted of staff from Caltrans, AC Transit, BART, Contra Costa County Health, Bike East Bay (formerly East Bay Bicycle Coalition), BART, Richmond and Albany. City staff has also been actively involved in the update to the WCCTAC Action Plan, which maintains LOS E along San Pablo Avenue, which is a route of regional significance, except within a 1/2 mile of a BART station where it defers to any MMLOS established by area specific plans. The Complete Streets improvements will be achieved through coordinated implementation by the City, private developers, regional transit agencies and Caltrans. Infrastructure Systems: The Infrastructure Systems section of the Plan identifies utility providers and infrastructure systems along the Avenue. For water, wastewater and storm drainage utilities, the Plan also provides a general review of potential limitations in the currently installed systems and recommends feasibility-level improvements and associated costs. The Plan provides general information regarding dry utilities including gas, electric and cable. Individual projects will work with the utility agencies to assess ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Page 6 improvements needed for their connection to the systems. Where long-term capacity information is lacking, the City will partner with the agencies to seek funding to develop capacity information and identify funding to remedy deficiencies, including developer impact fees where the improvements are related to the demands of new development. Environmental Impact Report (EIR): California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines require preparation of an EIR when a lead agency determines that there is evidence that a plan or project may have a significant effect on the environment. The City, as lead agency, determined that preparation of a program-level EIR for the Specific Plan was warranted to assure all environmental impacts were adequately analyzed, as permitted in Section 15060(d) of the CEQA Guidelines. The Draft EIR was made available for public and agency review on June 3, 2014. The Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH #[PHONE REDACTED]) analyzed the potential environmental impacts that could result with the implementation of the Specific Plan. The CEQA-mandated 45-day public comment period for the Draft EIR ended on July 21, 2014. The comments on the Draft EIR, changes to the Draft EIR, and the written responses were incorporated into a Final EIR that was published on August 28, 2014. Copies of the Final EIR were made available at El Cerrito City Hall, on the City’s website, and at the El Cerrito Library and at Richmond City Hall and Richmond library. For every impact identified, mitigations have been proposed. There are five areas of study that were not able to be mitigated to the point that their impacts could be found to be less than significant. Due to the nature of specific plans, this outcome is not unusual. Each of these five areas are briefly discussed below and also noted in detail in Attachment 1, Exhibit B. 1. Views: Specific Plan implementation could interfere with scenic views of Mt. Tamalpais, the Golden Gate Bridge, the San Francisco skyline, the East Bay Hills, and Albany Hill from public rights-of-way (roadways and sidewalks), the two BART station platforms (El Cerrito Plaza and El Cerrito Del Norte), and areas of lower elevation hillside homes located in El Cerrito and Richmond. The mitigation states that future City decision-making actions for individual project proposals under the Specific Plan, Specific Plan Section 2.02 (Administration of Regulating Code) shall be implemented as it applies to the proposal’s potential effect on scenic vistas. Whenever a project may create this impact, the City shall require evaluation (including visual simulations, if deemed necessary) of the proposal’s visual effect as viewed from important on-site and off-site viewpoints, including public rights- of-way of east-west streets (roadways and sidewalks) and the two BART station platforms in the Specific Plan area. Adjustments to design to frame or retain partial views may be leveraged. Because the outcome of this decision-making process for any individual, future proposals cannot be guaranteed, the impact under CEQA is considered significant and unavoidable. Some loss of these views may occur as a result of any project. It is important to note that this could happen under the current Zoning Ordinance. However, ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Page 7 because the impact cannot be precluded, mitigation to a level of insignificance is infeasible. That finding is acceptable under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines. The City Council will be asked to consider this issue as part of their required findings included in Attachment 1, Exhibit A. 2. Historic Resources: There may be one or more properties or features within the plan area that meet the CEQA definition of a historic resource, including properties or features already listed, or properties or features eligible for listing, in a local, State, or Federal register of historic resources. Future development projects that are otherwise consistent with the proposed Specific Plan may cause substantial adverse changes in the significance of one or more such historic resources. This is not the preferred intent of the City of El Cerrito, but it is impossible to preclude the possibility. When reviewing any individual discretionary project within the Specific Plan area that the City determines may involve a property that contains a potentially significant historic resource a recorded historic resource or an unrecorded building or structure 50 years or older) the resource shall be evaluated by City staff, and if warranted, shall be assessed by a qualified professional consultant. If, based on the recommendation of the qualified professional, the City determines that the project may have a potentially significant effect, the City shall require the applicant to implement the following mitigation measures: 1. The applicant will be strongly encouraged to retain the resource on site and integrate it into the new development in a way that is consistent with the Department of the Interior Standards. 2. If the resource cannot be retained on site, the applicant shall be strongly encouraged to move it to a new location compatible with the original character and use of the historical resource, and its historic features and compatibility in orientation, setting, and general environment shall be retained, such that the resource retains its eligibility for listing on the California Register. If neither #1 nor #2 is feasible, a project-specific EIR shall be required to ensure that the appropriate analysis is completed. This conservative approach provides the incentive for developers to integrate historic buildings into the new development in a way that does not have a negative impact on the historic resource. If a developer decides that the resource cannot be integrated into their project, they will not be able to rely on the programmatic EIR; rather, they will have to do a significant amount of additional analysis to create a project level EIR specific to their proposal. This approach makes a clear statement that it is the priority of the City of El Cerrito to preserve historic resources whenever it is feasible to do so. If a project cannot meet this goal the applicant will have to complete a focused EIR, just as they would have to do under the current code. However, because the impact cannot be precluded from occurring, mitigation to a level of insignificance is infeasible. That finding is acceptable under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Page 8 Guidelines. The City Council will be asked to consider this issue as part of their required findings included in Attachment 1, Exhibit A. 3. Noise and 4. Vibration: Businesses and residences would be intermittently exposed to high levels of noise and vibration throughout the 2040 plan horizon during construction. A list of constraints and conditions have also been incorporated into the mitigations that will lessen the effects identified in the EIR, although not to a level of insignificance. Even with the mitigation measures it may not be possible to avoid some noise disturbance as well as the use of pile drivers, vibratory rollers, and tampers entirely during construction. Due to the density of development in the area, some of these activities may take place near sensitive areas. In these cases, the mitigation measures listed above may not be sufficient to reduce noise and groundborne vibrations below a level of significance. Because the impact cannot be completely avoided, mitigation to a level of insignificance is infeasible. That finding is acceptable under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines. The City Council will be asked to consider this issue as part of their required findings included in Attachment 1, Exhibit A. 5. Cumulative Traffic Impact at San Pablo Avenue/Cutting Boulevard: Cumulatively, the Plan may have an impact, relative to the City’s current LOS standard of D, at San Pablo Avenue/Cutting Boulevard, which would fall from LOS D in the Cumulative No Project case to LOS E in the Cumulative with Project case. Adoption and full implementation of the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan/Complete Streets Plan is projected to reduce auto trips relative to the baseline assumption in the impact analysis, which would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. However, because the projected mode shift cannot be guaranteed, and adoption of the proposed new multi-modal LOS goals as defined in the draft plan cannot be assured, the City cannot determine with certainty that this mitigation measure would reduce the potential cumulative traffic impacts to a less-than-significant level. Because the impact reduction cannot be completely guaranteed, mitigation to a level of insignificance is infeasible. That finding is acceptable under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines. The City Council will be asked to consider this issue as part of their required findings included in Attachment 1, Exhibit A. Issues The major issues raised by the public in response to the proposed Plan concern traffic, height and parking. Below is a summary of the major concerns staff has heard, and a response from staff on how the issue is addressed in the Plan, its implementation and parallel efforts. 1. Building Height: The increased height limits are too tall causing significant shading or canyon effect on San Pablo Avenue. ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Page 9 Staff Response: Height limits will increase from 35 feet to as high as 65 feet in the Downtown and Uptown areas and 55 feet in the Midtown area for market priced housing in El Cerrito. The height limit on parcels in the City of Richmond in Midtown will be based upon Richmond’s proposed Livable Corridors T4 Main Street standards of 3 stories. Richmond parcels Uptown and Downtown will correspond to T5 Main Street, which allows buildings up to 55’ (and 85’ in some areas.) Current El Cerrito code typically allows a maximum height of 35 feet, with up to 65 feet if certain incentives were included in the project objectives. The proposed Plan allows for up to 65 feet (Midtown) and 85 feet (Uptown and Downtown) for projects that qualify for a density bonus in compliance with State density bonus regulations. (Current heights on San Pablo Avenue are a range, including Civic Plaza Apartments (35 ft), Del Norte Place (53 ft) and the Eskaton Hazel Shirley Manor (40 ft). City Hall is 50 feet at its highest point.) The proposed increase in heights are in response to both the desire to increase housing along transportation corridors and issues of development feasibility, as documented in the El Cerrito Development Feasibility Analysis presented to Council at its November 21, 2011 meeting. In addition, financial proformas that the City has reviewed for potential development projects as well as numerous Bay Area studies have informed the discussion on the topic. Anticipated rents, the cost of construction and other variables would be unlikely to result in much new construction along the San Pablo Avenue if market rate development continues to be capped at 35 feet. However, it is also important to note, that the proposed Plan will not result in all new buildings being built to the maximum, due to parcel size constraints and those imposed by the proposed Form Based Code, such as shade limitations and daylight plane requirements for adjacent residential parcels. The Plan also limits of buildings, requires mid-block connections, and other provisions that aim to result in an environment which is actually more human-scaled and livable than what is experienced today on San Pablo Avenue, even though some building heights exceed 35 feet. Finally, the proposed Plan and EIR call for an additional 1,706 units to be built over the next decades within the Plan area, which includes the entire stretch of San Pablo Avenue in El Cerrito plus the portions within Richmond. As noted in the EIR, the 1,706 figure evaluated includes projects already in the “pipeline”, such as the Creekside Walk project at El Cerrito Plaza, the anticipated project at Mayfair, Ohlone Gardens, Eden Senior Housing and development proposed along Central. (Note: The SPASP EIR does not specifically evaluate individual projects, but evaluates the impacts of all development in the SPASP at a “program-level” analysis under CEQA. The “pipeline” projects mentioned above will, or have, received the appropriate, project level of CEQA analysis before the City considers approval of each project.) It is anticipated that the change will be gradual and new significant development will likely take place on a small number of larger parcels, generally located near the BART stations and a few in Midtown. As mentioned above, new midrise development would only increase in size by one-to-two floors from the most recent mixed use projects in the City and adjacent communities. Additionally, it is ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Page 10 expected that the new development will help stimulate new restaurant, office and retail establishments and promote reinvestment in existing businesses. 2. Traffic. The result of adding 1,706 new dwelling units and adding infrastructure for bicycles to the area will make an already challenging vehicle environment, worse. Staff Response: Local and national studies have found that mixed-use and transit- oriented neighborhoods generate fewer automobile trips and therefore reduce traffic impacts relative to single-use suburban development. These types of neighborhoods make walking safe and convenient, and are near developments that allow residents and workers to drive less. While the automobile level of service (LOS) analysis shows that congestion and delays are projected to increase with the Plan due to the land use development included in the Plan and a small increase in regional traffic along San Pablo Avenue, the resulting peak hour service levels are generally projected to be at LOS D or better, the current City standard, with one exception (San Pablo Avenue/Cutting Boulevard in the Cumulative [2040] Plus Project case.) In addition, the projected mode shift of seven percent (from automobiles to transit, pedestrian and bicycle mode) that can be achieved with implementation of the Plan-- i.e., all of the bicycle, pedestrian and transit policy and infrastructure improvements that together will support and promote alternatives to the automobile – would further reduce traffic impacts. The Specific Plan would result in safer conditions for bicyclists and pedestrians, and a streetscape design that would better serve all travel modes - in particular buses, pedestrians, and bicyclists - while still accommodating vehicles and reducing conflicts between travel modes. Finally, the City is working with neighboring and regional agencies on additional efforts outside the Plan area, including the I-80/Central Avenue Interchange Improvement Project, to ameliorate existing traffic problems. 3. Parking. There will not be enough parking. I live in the hills/cannot bicycle/walk and/or there is no adequate bus service. I will not be able to find parking. Staff Response: On-street parking is considered an important amenity and will largely be preserved except for potentially along a few blocks between Potrero to Hill and Cutting Boulevard to Wall Street where a bike lane is proposed. During detailed design, it will be determined in this location whether Super Sharrows (that preserve parking) or a bicycle lane is the preferred option. The proposed buffered- bike lane and bus-platforms, aim to maintain the same amount of on-street parking that there is today. Studies on the topic indicate that aside from near the two BART stations, both on-street and off-street parking along San Pablo Avenue is largely underutilized. By requiring the appropriate amount of parking in new development, the land available for housing and commercial development is optimized. Existing off-street parking will remain unless and until a new project application is approved. As a component of Specific Plan implementation, the City will continue to develop parking and transportation demand management programs, as called for in the 2011 ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Page 11 El Cerrito Parking Study as well as numerous regional publications, in order to assure that adequate parking is available. The largest impact to local parking is from the BART riders. The City will continue to work with BART to manage the impacts of this parking. Development fees proposed to implement the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan, also under consideration tonight, will help fund new and ongoing parking and transportation demand management programs. ANALYSIS Actions before Council tonight include: Certification of the Environmental Impact Report, Adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Approval of a Statement of Overriding Consideration The City Council, using its independent judgment must consider the findings and conclusions of the EIR (as discussed above and in Attachment 1, Exhibit certify that the EIR compies with CEQA, and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). See Environmental Considerations below and Attachment 1 for additional details about CEQA for the proposed Plan. General Plan Amendment Although technically a General Plan Amendment is required for the adoption of the Specific Plan, the Plan is consistent with the spirit and intent of most of the existing goals and policies identified in the General Plan for the San Pablo Avenue corridor. For example, in the Strategic Framework Section; there are seven Primary Action Strategies identified “as the most important steps to accomplishing the vision for El Cerrito”. The Plan completely implements Strategy 5: The San Pablo Avenue Corridor Design Guidelines. It provides significant guidance towards fulfilling Strategy 1: Del Norte Area Transportation Access/Land Use Strategy, Strategy 2: Adopt a Midtown Area Revitalization Strategy, Strategy 3: Adopt the El Cerrito Plaza Revitalization Strategy, and Strategy 6: Create a Green Infrastructure Initiative by laying out a vision for context sensitive development strategy that affords a balance of building intensity, open space creation, historic preservation and commercial vibrancy. It also forwards the goals of Strategy 7: Create a Community Collaboration Initiative by raising the bar for public outreach in terms of notification methods and time and for instituting early review of complex projects. Many of the goals and policies found in the Community Development and Design, the Housing Element and the Transportation and Circulation Chapters are also being fulfilled by the Plan. Please reference the General Plan for specific details. The changes to the General Plan address the metrics that it uses to measure intensity and growth. This includes references to Density and Floor Area Ratio, (FAR) and a switch from the current automobile Level of Service standard (LOS) of D to an automobile LOS E along with Multimodal Level of Service (MMLOS) standards for transit, pedestrian and bicycle uses. Traditionally, density and FAR are ways that planners used to describe and quantify the amount of housing units in an acre and overall building ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Page 12 intensity. Instead of using those more indirect building form controls, FBC uses building form regulation to control the configuration, features and architectural aspects of projects as they relate to the public realm. The MMLOS is a way of evaluating the impacts of development projects and street infrastructure projects on all modes of transportation. While LOS reviewed only the impacts on motor vehicles, MMLOS adds metrics to consider pedestrians, bicyclists and transit. By allowing the measurement of all of these modes of transportation, it allows staff and city decision makers to make improvements that will serve all users of the Plan area. It is the goal of this Plan to allocate the highest level of service to transit and pedestrian uses while the automobile level of service standard is mildly decreased. The motor vehicle is a primary mode of transportation in our city. The Plan notes that fact and ensures that it will continue to be able to provide ample parking and ease of use for all vehicles. The MMLOS standards allow other users’ needs to be measured and addressed. Staff believes that is appropriate to amend the General Plan for the Plan area to adhere to the practices of FBC and MMLOS. It is in the public interest because it adopts context- sensitive regulations to be applied throughout the Plan area. Please see Attachment 2 to review the complete set of findings on this issue. Zoning Ordinance and Map Amendment The existing Zoning Ordinance and Map are required to be physically amended to reflect the new Plan Area. This action is often called rezoning. The Plan itself will be added to the El Cerrito Municipal Code as Section 19.15 as the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Special District. The existing Municipal Code shall remain in full effect throughout the city limits. Inside the Plan Area, the Specific Plan shall take precedence over the Zoning Ordinance. If the Plan is silent on any issue, the underlying zoning regulations still govern. For example, any definition that is not found in the Plan but exists in the zoning regulations, will be valid for the Plan Area, as well. All existing specifications related to the construction and installation of structures and infrastructure shall continue to comply with the rules, regulations and requirements of the City of El Cerrito. Nothing in the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Special District should be interpreted to preclude the application and enforcement of other state and federal laws, including but not limited to the California Environmental Quality Act, the California Building Standards Code (as amended by local resolution), the California Fire Code, the Permit Streamlining Act, the California Density Bonus Law and the C.3 requirements of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board’s Municipal Regional Permit. Attachment 4 and 5 provide the legal steps for this entitlement. STRATEGIC PLAN CONSIDERATIONS The City’s strategic plan articulates the mission of the City to serve, lead and support our diverse community by providing exemplary and innovative services, public places and infrastructure, ensure public safety, and create an economically and environmentally sustainable future. The SPASP directly implements several of the goals and strategies, ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Page 13 and is consistent with the overall Strategic Plan. The primary goals and strategies furthered by the SPASP include: • Goal B: Achieve long-term financial sustainability o Attract and maximize opportunities for new/expanding businesses • Goal C: Deepen a sense of place and community identity o Re-imagine underdeveloped and underutilized properties through advance planning efforts that encourage investment and/or new development o Encourage use of alternative modes of transportation to connect people and create a sense of community • Goal F: Foster environmental sustainability citywide o Implement the City’s Climate Action Plan, including:  Reducing vehicle miles traveled (by creating a well connected, pedestrian, bicycle and transit-oriented urban form that will make it easier for residents and visitors to leave their car behind ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines require preparation of an EIR when a lead agency determines that there is evidence that a plan or project may have a significant effect on the environment. The City prepared an EIR Section pursuant to 15060(d) of the CEQA Guidelines. On April 4, 2014, the City circulated a Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) for 30 calendar days to help identify the type of impacts that could result from the Specific Plan, as well as potential areas of controversy. On June 3, 2014, the Draft EIR was made available for public and agency review. The 45-day public comment period for the Draft EIR ended on July 21, 2014. All comments on the Draft EIR concerning environmental issues received during the public comment period were evaluated and responded to in writing by the City as the Lead Agency in accordance with Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines. On August 28, 2014, the comments on the Draft EIR, changes to the Draft EIR, and the written responses were incorporated into a Final EIR and released to the public. On September 4, 2014 the Planning Commission, having fully reviewed, considered and evaluated all the testimony and evidence submitted, voted affirmatively to recommend to the City Council to find that the Final EIR was prepared in compliance with CEQA. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS There are no direct costs associated with the action requested tonight. Costs associated with processing development applications under the proposed Plan will be paid for through the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan application fees, also under consideration tonight. Costs associated with ongoing Plan implementation, maintenance and ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(8) monitoring will be partially paid for by the proposed San Pablo Ave Specific Plan Maintenance fee, also under consideration tonight. Additional funds for ongoing Plan implementation will be sought by grants and conducted as a part of the normal operating budget ofthe City. Costs associated with development and implementation of Complete Streets will largely, if not entirely, be funded by outside grants and developer contributions and would not be appropriated until subsequent City Council decisions are made, e.g. to approve a design and award a contract. Costs associated with infrastructure needs for new development will be paid for by new development. New revenues are anticipated as a result of the action in the form of Planning and Building fees, Plan Maintenance fees and increased sales tax and property tax revenues that would result from new commercial and residential development and increased economic activity. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS The City Attorney has reviewed all of the documents, resolutions and ordinances associated with the action requested tonight. Scott Hanin, City Manager Attachments 1) Attachment 1 Draft Resolution Certifying the Environmental Impact Report, Adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program a. Exhibit A: Findings Required Under the Californian Environmental Quality Act b. Exhibit B: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 2) Attachment 2 Draft Resolution to approve the General Plan Amendment a. Exhibit A Amended General Plan Text b. Exhibit B General Plan Map 3) Attachment 3 Draft Resolution to Adopt San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan a. Draft San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan, dated August 2014 (Under Separate Cover and posted to the City's website at www.el- cerrito.org/SP ASP) 4) Attachment 4 Draft Ordinance to approve Rezoning Properties in the Plan Area a. Exhibit A: List of Property Owners b. Exhibit B: Zoning Map 5) Attachment 5 Draft Ordinance Amending Title 19 of the Municipal Code Page 14 ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Page 15 6) Errata (Dated September 11, 2014) 7) Public Comment received since the date of the Planning Commission meeting (September 4, 2014) 8) San Pablo Avenue Draft and Final Environmental Impact Reports and Mitigation Monitoring Program. (Collectively the EIR) (Under Separate Cover and on the City’s website at www.el-cerrito.org/SPASP) 9) Powerpoint presentation ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Attachment 1 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF EL CERRITO CITY COUNCIL CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM WHEREAS, on April 4, 2014, the City circulated a Notice of Preparation for an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan (SPASP) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, on April 10, 2014, a public Scoping Meeting for the EIR was held at City Hall; and WHEREAS, on June 3, 2014 the Draft EIR was circulated for public comment; and WHEREAS, on July 9, 2014 the City of El Cerrito heard public comment on the Draft EIR; and WHEREAS, on July 21, 2014, the public comment period for the Draft EIR closed; and WHEREAS, on September 4, 2014 the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council certify of EIR. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: The City Council of the City of El Cerrito finds that pursuant to CEQA Guidelines and Section 19.42 of the El Cerrito Municipal Code: 1. Pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, a Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report was circulated on April 4, 2014. A scoping meeting was held at City Hall on April 10, 2014. The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was circulated on June 4, 2014 the public comment period on the DEIR ended on July 21, 2014. Pursuant to CEQA, comments received during the comment period have been be responded to in the Final EIR which is now before the City Council for consideration. 2. The analysis contained in the EIR has been developed using experts in related fields to professional standards stipulated by the CEQA Guidelines and by prevailing CEQA case law. 3. The Final EIR was presented to the City Council prior to the September 22, 2014 meeting. The City Council reviewed the final EIR and has considered the analysis contained therein. 4. On September 22, 2014, the City Council held a public hearing and heard public comments and testimony regarding the Final EIR. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. The Final EIR has been developed by City of El Cerrito staff and the City’s consultant, using the analysis of experts in related fields. The final EIR reflects the independent expert analysis the City of El Cerrito’s independent judgment. 6. The City Council certifies that the Environmental Impact Report has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. 7. The City hereby makes the findings and adopts a statement of overriding considerations in compliance with Sections 15091, 15092, 15093, and 15097 of the CEQA Guidelines and Sections 21081, 21081.5, and 21081.6 of CEQA, as set forth in detail in the attached Exhibit A, and based on the above certified Final EIR and substantial evidence in the record. 8. The City Council hereby adopts the mitigation measures and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to be implemented for each mitigation measure as included in Exhibit B, in compliance with Section 15097 of the CEQA Guidelines. 9. The location of the documents that constitute the record of proceedings are available for public review during business hours at El Cerrito City Hall, Community Development Department, 10890 San Pablo Avenue, El Cerrito CA. I CERTIFY that at a regular meeting on September 22, 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 September X, 2014. Cheryl Morse, City Clerk APPROVED: Janet Abelson, Mayor Attachments: Exhibit A – Findings Required Under the California Environmental Quality Act Exhibit B – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Attachment 1 Exhibit A 1 FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FOR THE SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN (Public Resources Code, section 21000 et. seq.) I. INTRODUCTION The Specific Plan ("project") represents a collaborative planning effort between the cities of El Cerrito and Richmond to identify a shared vision for the future of San Pablo Avenue, identify improvement needs, and adopt implementing regulations that can be applied consistently in the Plan area. The project consists of a Form-Based Code (FBC); multi-modal transportation goals and policies, recommended streetscape design improvements, and design standards as part of the Complete Streets Plan; and infrastructure improvements. The Specific Plan: 1. Form-Based Code The Specific Plan Form-Based Code (FBC) supports the community vision of a vibrant, walkable, sustainable, and transit-oriented corridor that respects surrounding neighborhoods. As discussed in chapter 3 (Project Description) of this EIR, the FBC is organized by Transect Zones within a framework of Downtown, Midtown, and Uptown areas. The Transect Zones regulate the building heights, parking requirements, and land uses for new development in the El Cerrito portion of the Plan area. The zones are defined primarily by walking distance to the BART stations. 2. Complete Streets Plan The Complete Streets Plan provides direction for the redesign and development of the street right- of-way (ROW) in the Plan area, such as travel lanes, intersections, bike lanes, cycletracks, crosswalks, and medians. The Plan also provides guidance for the pedestrian realm of the ROW. The Complete Streets Plan aims to create a streetscape environment that balances the needs of all users and encourages “mode shift” to increase the percentage of pedestrians, cyclists, and transit users. ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Attachment 1 Exhibit A 2 3. Infrastructure Systems The Specific Plan (especially the Infrastructure Systems chapter) includes infrastructure goals and policies, and recommends feasible improvements to infrastructure systems to support the Plan objectives. The systems evaluated in the plan include water, wastewater, storm drainage, and dry utilities gas, electric, cable). Development Capacity Assumptions The Plan area development capacity assumptions used for the impact analyses in this program EIR are first based on projections provided by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) for the Plan area, then on entitled and planned projects in the City of El Cerrito and the City of Richmond, and projections for the construction of projects consistent with the Form-Based Code development standards. For the purpose of this EIR, ABAG Plan Bay Area growth projections were applied to the new development standards, including on-site parking, site layout and height parameters, to assume a realistic growth projection for the Specific Plan area. These design standards were developed to be consistent with the goals of Plan Bay Area: climate protection, adequate housing, healthy and safe communities, open space and agricultural preservation, equitable access, economic vitality, and transportation system effectiveness, but incorporate locally refined data more telling of the development feasibility of the Specific Plan than would be possible on a regional planning level (also see EIR chapter 14, Population and Housing). No site-specific, individual development proposals would be approved as part of the Specific Plan EIR certification process; any such individual project would be subject to its own CEQA review, including evaluation against the Specific Plan EIR. The Specific Plan requires the following approvals: Implementation of the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan for the parcels within the City of El Cerrito’s jurisdiction would require, but not be limited to, the following discretionary approvals:  Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report  Adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program  Adoption of the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan for the parcels within the City of El Cerrito; adoption of the Richmond Livable Corridors Form-Based Code development standards for the parcels within the City of Richmond, and amendment to the Richmond Livable Corridors Regulating Plan to add the areas within the Specific Plan  Adoption of General Plan amendments and zoning changes as necessary to ensure consistency between the Specific Plan and each jurisdiction’s respective General Plan and zoning code  Discretionary review as necessary, including CEQA review, for future individual public and private development proposals in the Plan area ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Attachment 1 Exhibit A 3 II. PROJECT OBJECTIVES The City Council has determined that the Project has been designed to meet the following objectives: Goal A: Strengthen Sense of Place. Strategy 1: Articulate the distinctive role and identity of each focus area: Downtown, Midtown, and Uptown. Strategy 2: Reinforce a distinguishing sense of place by responding to existing assets such as the Ohlone Greenway and key views. Strategy 3: Optimize placemaking in all developments. Strategy 4: Attract pedestrian activity to key nodes to foster community and identify places of Interest Goal B: Ensure Return on Investment. Strategy 1: Maximize TOD (transit-oriented development) potential (BART and AC Transit). Strategy 2: Stimulate investment in vacant/underutilized sites at key focus areas. Strategy 3: Build on recent and planned private and public investments. Strategy 4: Leverage all investments to catalyze new investments. Strategy 5: Help the City achieve long-term financial sustainability. Goal C: Encourage Practical and Market Friendly Development. Strategy 1: Provide development clarity to encourage investment. Strategy 2: Incorporate flexible development codes that respond to constrained parcels, surrounding context, and the market. Strategy 3: Allow ground floor residential development to provide flexibility and expand the Specific Plan area’s residential base. Goal D: Enhance and Humanize the Public Realm. Strategy 1: Design streets for living instead of just driving through reStreet placemaking principles. Strategy 2: Make large blocks human-scale through midblock connections. Strategy 3: Create new gathering places to serve the needs of existing and new users. Strategy 4: Promote environmental sustainability. Strategy 5: Celebrate and strengthen the unique natural context. Goal E: Catalyze Mode Shift. Strategy 1: Promote infill development through increased land use intensity close to existing transit infrastructure. Strategy 2: Reduce parking requirements to encourage transit use and reduce reliance on the private automobile Strategy 3: Strengthen pedestrian and bicycle connectivity through existing and new connections that provide more alternatives to single-occupancy vehicles. Strategy 4: Integrate opportunities to create Complete Streets, multimodal travel ways that balance all users. ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Attachment 1 Exhibit A 4 Strategy 5: Improve connectivity between the Green Belt (Wildcat Canyon Trail) and the Blue Belt (Bay Trail) through pedestrian and bicycle connections. Strategy 6: Improve walkability through more intensive and varied development that provides additional services and locates more future residents in service-rich nodes. Strategy 7: Increase the supply, diversity and affordability of housing in proximity to existing or planned transportation investments. Specific Plan Guiding Principles • strengthen a sense of place; • ensure return on investment; • encourage practical and market friendly development; • enhance and humanize the public realm; and • catalyze mode shift. III. GENERAL FINDINGS AND OVERVIEW A. Procedural Background California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines require preparation of an EIR when a lead agency determines that there is evidence that a plan or project may have a significant effect on the environment. The City decided to prepare an EIR for the Specific Plan pursuant to state and local guidelines for implementing CEQA. The City elected not to prepare an Initial Study Checklist in favor of preparing a program-level EIR as permitted in Section 15060(d) of the CEQA Guidelines. On April 4, 2014 the City circulated a Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) for 30 calendar days to help identify the type of impacts that could result from the Specific Plan, as well as potential areas of controversy. The NOP was mailed to public agencies (including the State Clearinghouse), organizations, and individuals likely to be interested in the Specific Plan and its potential impacts, including those who requested to receive notices on the Plan. In addition, the NOP was posted on the City’s website. A public scoping meeting was held on April 10, 2014. Comments received by the City on the NOP and at the public scoping meeting were considered during preparation of the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR was made available for public and agency review on June 3, 2014. Copies of the Notice of Availability (“NOA”) of the Draft EIR were mailed to public agencies (including the State Clearinghouse (SCH #[PHONE REDACTED])), organizations, and individuals likely to be interested in the Specific Plan and its potential impacts, including those who requested to receive notices about the Plan. In addition, copies of the Draft EIR were distributed to public agencies (including the State Clearinghouse). Copies of the Draft EIR were made available at the Community Development Department, at the El Cerrito Library, the Richmond Library and on the City’s website. A public comment session on the Draft EIR was held before the Planning Commission on July 9, 2014. The CEQA-mandated 45-day public comment period for the Draft EIR ended on July ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Attachment 1 Exhibit A 5 21, 2014. All comments on the Draft EIR concerning environmental issues received during the public comment period were evaluated and responded to in writing by the City as the Lead Agency in accordance with Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines. The comments on the Draft EIR, changes to the Draft EIR, and the written responses were incorporated into a Final EIR that was published on August 28, 2014. Copies of the Final EIR were made available at the Community Development Department, on the City’s website, the El Cerrito Library and the Richmond Library. A duly and properly noticed public hearing was scheduled before the Planning Commission of the City of El Cerrito on September 4, 2014, and all persons interested and expressing a desire to comment were heard. The Planning Commission, having fully reviewed, considered and evaluated all the testimony and evidence submitted, voted affirmatively to recommend to the City Council to find that the Final EIR was prepared in compliance with CEQA and to recommend that findings be made as required by CEQA. A duly and properly noticed public hearing was scheduled before the City Council of the City of El Cerrito on September 22, 2014, and all persons interested and expressing a desire to comment were heard. B. Record of Proceedings and Custodian of Record For purposes of CEQA and these Findings, the record of proceedings consists of the following documents and testimony: The NOP, comments received on the NOP or at the scoping meeting, and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the Plan; The Draft San Pablo Specific Plan released for public review on June 3, 2014 and the revised Draft San Pablo Specific Plan released on August 28, 2014; The Draft EIR for the Project (June 3, 2014), appendices to the EIR, and technical materials cited in the document; All comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public comment period on the Draft EIR; The Final EIR for the Plan, including comments received on the Draft EIR, responses to those comments, text revisions to the Draft EIR, the technical appendices, and technical materials cited in the document, as well as all comments and staff responses entered into the record orally or in writing between June 3, 2014 and July 21, 2014; The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Mitigation Checklist) for the Plan; All reports, studies, memoranda, maps, staff reports, or other planning documents related to the Plan prepared by the City, or consultants to the City with respect to the City’s compliance ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Attachment 1 Exhibit A 6 with the requirements of CEQA and with respect to the City’s action on the Plan; All documents submitted to the City (including the Planning Commission and City Council) by other public agencies or members of the public in connection with the EIR, up through the close of the public hearing on September 22, 2014; Any minutes and/or verbatim transcripts of all information sessions, public meetings, and public hearings held by the City in connection with the EIR; All matters of common knowledge to the Commission and Council, including, but not limited to: The El Cerrito General Plan and other applicable policies; (ii) The El Cerrito Zoning Ordinance and other applicable ordinances; (iii) Information regarding the City’s fiscal status; and (iv) Applicable City policies and regulations; and Any other materials required for the record of proceedings by Public Resources Code Section 21167.6(e). The documents described above comprising the record of proceedings are located in the Community Development Department, City of El Cerrito, 10890 San Pablo Avenue, El Cerrito, CA 9453. The custodian of these documents is the Community Development Director or his/her designee. C. Findings Are Determinative These City of El Cerrito findings required under CEQA for the Specific Plan (“Findings”) are the City’s findings under CEQA (Pub. Resources Code, §21000 et seq.) and CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code of Regulations, Title 14, §15000 et seq.) relating to the Plan. The Findings provide the written analysis and conclusions of the Council regarding the Plan’s environmental impacts, mitigation measures and project alternatives that, in the Council’s view, justify approval of the Plan. All mitigation measures listed below in this Findings document are included in a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”). In certifying the Final EIR, the City Council recognizes that there may be differences in and among the different sources of information and opinions offered in the document and testimony that make up the EIR and the administrative record; that experts disagree; and that the City Council must base its decision and these findings on the substantial evidence in the record that it finds most compelling. Therefore, by these findings, the City Council ratifies, clarifies, and/or makes insignificant modifications to the EIR and resolves that these findings shall control and are determinative of the significant impacts of the Project. The mitigation measures proposed in the EIR have been adopted and included in the MMRP, substantially in the form proposed in the EIR, with such clarifications and non- substantive ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Attachment 1 Exhibit A 7 modifications as the City Council has deemed appropriate to implement the mitigation measures. The MMRP is expressly incorporated into the Project. The findings and determinations in this Exhibit B are to be considered as an integrated whole and, whether or not any subdivision of this Exhibit B fails to cross-reference or incorporate by reference any other subdivision of this Exhibit B, any finding or determination required or permitted to be made shall be deemed made if it appears in any portion of this document. All of the text included in this document constitutes findings and determinations, whether or not any particular caption sentence or clause includes a statement to that effect. Each finding in this Exhibit B is based on the entire record. The omission of any relevant fact from the summary discussions below is not an indication that a particular finding is not based in part on the omitted fact. Many of the mitigation measures identified in this Exhibit B may have the effect of mitigating multiple impacts conditions imposed primarily to mitigate traffic impacts may also secondarily mitigate air quality impacts, etc.). The City Council has not attempted to exhaustively cross-reference all potential impacts mitigated by a particular mitigation measure; however, any failure to cross-reference shall not be construed as a limitation on the potential scope or effect of any such mitigation measure. IV. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS A. SCENIC VISTAS Aesthetics Impact 4-1: Project Impacts on Scenic Vistas. Specific Plan implementation could interfere with scenic views of Mt. Tamalpais, the Golden Gate Bridge, the San Francisco skyline, the East Bay Hills, and Albany Hill from public rights-of-way (roadways and sidewalks), the two BART station platforms (El Cerrito Plaza and El Cerrito Del Norte), and areas of lower elevation hillside homes located in El Cerrito and Richmond. Aesthetics Mitigation 4-1. For future City decision-making actions for individual project proposals under the Specific Plan, Specific Plan Section 2.02 (Administration of Regulating Code) shall be implemented as it applies to the proposal’s potential effect on scenic vistas. The City shall require evaluation (including visual simulations, if deemed necessary) of the proposal’s visual effect as viewed from important on-site and off-site viewpoints, including public rights-of-way of east-west streets (roadways and sidewalks) and the two BART station platforms in the Specific Plan area (El Cerrito Plaza and El Cerrito Del Norte). The evaluation shall address the proposal’s effect on views of Mt. Tamalpais, the Golden Gate Bridge, the San Francisco skyline, the East Bay Hills, and Albany Hill. This mitigation shall be enforceable by its incorporation into the Specific Plan as a City-adopted policy and shall be implemented through subsequent permits, conditions, agreements, or other measures consistent with Specific Plan Section 2.02. Mitigation Measure Aesthetics 4-1 has been incorporated into the MMRP. ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Attachment 1 Exhibit A 8 Findings. Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record before the Planning Commission and City Council, the City Council finds that: 1. Effects of Mitigation: Changes or alterations have been incorporated into the Project that lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR, although not to a level of insignificance. Incorporation of this measure would reduce the impact on scenic vistas. 2. Remaining Impacts: Because the outcome of this decision-making process for any individual, future proposals cannot be guaranteed within the framework of this program EIR, the impact is considered significant and unavoidable. 3. Finding. Because the outcome of future decision making process is cannot be guaranteed to work within the framework of the program EIR, No alternative (including the No Project alternative) or additional mitigation measures have been identified that would reduce this impact to a level of insignificance, and as a consequence mitigation to a level of insignificance is infeasible. (14 California Code of Regulations §15091(a)(3)) CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES. Impact 7-1: Destruction/Degradation of Historic Resources. There may be one or more properties or features within the plan area that meet the CEQA definition of a historic resource, including properties or features already listed, or properties or features eligible for listing, in a local, State, or Federal register of historic resources. Future development projects that are otherwise consistent with the proposed Specific Plan may cause substantial adverse changes in the significance of one or more such historic resources. Substantial adverse changes that may occur include physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of one or more historic resources or its immediate surroundings such that the resource is "materially impaired." The significance of a historic resource would be considered potentially "materially impaired" when and if an individual future development project proposes to demolish or materially alter the physical characteristics that justify the determination of its significance (CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5[b]). Mitigation 7-1. For any individual discretionary project within the Specific Plan area that the City determines may involve a property that contains a potentially significant historic resource a recorded historic resource or an unrecorded building or structure 50 years or older), the resource shall be evaluated by City staff, and if warranted, shall be assessed by a qualified professional on the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) list of consultants who meet the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards to determine whether the property is a significant historical resource and whether or not the project may have a potentially significant adverse effect on the historical resource. If, based on the recommendation of the qualified professional, the City determines that the project may have a potentially significant effect, the City shall require the applicant to implement the following mitigation measures: Adhere to one or both of the following Secretary of the Interior’s Standards: ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Attachment 1 Exhibit A 9 • Secretary of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings; or • Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. The qualified professional shall make a recommendation to the City as to whether the project fully adheres to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, and any specific modifications necessary to do so. The final determination as to a project's adherence to the Standards shall be made by the City body with final decision-making authority over the project. Such a determination of individual project adherence to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards will constitute mitigation of the project historic resource impacts to a less than- significant level (CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5). If measure is not feasible, the historic resource shall be moved to a new location compatible with the original character and use of the historical resource, and its historic features and compatibility in orientation, setting, and general environment shall be retained, such that the resource retains its eligibility for listing on the California Register. If neither measure nor measure is feasible, a project-specific EIR shall be required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, particularly in order for specific project alternatives to be designed and evaluated. If after that CEQA process, neither measure nor is found to be feasible, then the City shall, as applicable and to the extent feasible, implement the following measures in the following order: Document the historic resource before any changes that would cause a loss of integrity and loss of continued eligibility. The documentation shall adhere to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Architectural and Engineering Documentation. The level of documentation shall be proportionate with the level of significance of the resource. The documentation shall be made available for inclusion in the Historic American Building Survey (HABS) or the Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) Collections in the Library of Congress, the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), and the Bancroft Library, as well as local libraries and historical societies, such as the El Cerrito Historical Society. Retain and reuse the historic resource to the maximum feasible extent and continue to apply the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards to the maximum feasible extent in all alterations, additions, and new construction. Through careful methods of planned deconstruction to avoid damage and loss, salvage character defining features and materials for educational and interpretive use onsite, or for reuse in new construction on the site in a way that commemorates their original use and significance. Interpret the historical significance of the resource through a permanent exhibit or program in a publicly accessible location on the site or elsewhere within the Specific Plan Area. Implementation of measures and/or would reduce a significant impact on historic resources. ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Attachment 1 Exhibit A 10 Mitigation Measure HR 7-1 has been incorporated into the MMRP. Findings. Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record before the Planning Commission and City Council, the City Council finds that: 1. Effects of Mitigation: Changes or alterations have been incorporated into the Project that lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR, although not to a level of insignificance. This Program EIR is prohibited from speculating on the details of any future individual development proposal and its potential impact on a historic resource, and the City cannot determine with certainty that this mitigation measure would reduce the potential impact of any individual project on a historic resource to a less-than-significant level. 2. Remaining Impacts: The impacts to cultural and historic resources would remain significant and unavoidable. 3. Finding: No alternative (including the No Project alternative) or additional mitigation measure has been identified that would reduce this impact to a level of insignificance, and as a consequence mitigation to a level of insignificance is infeasible. (14 California Code of Regulations §15091(a)(3)). NOISE Impact 13-3: Construction Noise. Businesses and residences would be intermittently exposed to high levels of noise throughout the 2040 plan horizon. Construction would elevate noise levels at adjacent businesses and residences by 15 to 20 dBA or more. Mitigation 13-3. Construction equipment shall be well-maintained and used judiciously to be as quiet as practical. The following measures, when applicable, are recommended to reduce noise from construction activities: • Equip all internal combustion engine-driven equipment with mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment. • Utilize “quiet” models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists. • Locate stationary noise generating equipment as far as feasible from sensitive receptors when sensitive receptors adjoin or are near a construction area. • Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines. • Pre-drill foundation pile holes to minimize the number of impacts required to seat the pile. • Construct solid plywood fences around construction sites adjacent to operational business, residences, or noise sensitive land uses. ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Attachment 1 Exhibit A 11 • A temporary noise control blanket barrier could be erected, if necessary, along building facades facing construction sites. This mitigation would only be necessary if conflicts occurred which were irresolvable by proper scheduling. Noise control blanket barriers can be rented and quickly erected. • Route construction-related traffic along major roadways and as far as feasible from sensitive receptors • Ensure that construction activities (including the loading and unloading of materials and truck movements) are limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 PM on weekdays and between the hours of 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM on Saturdays. No construction work is allowed on Sundays and holidays. • Ensure that excavating, grading, and filling activities (including warming of equipment motors) are limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 PM on weekdays and between the hours of 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM on Saturdays. No construction work is allowed on Sundays and holidays. • Businesses, residences, or noise sensitive land uses adjacent to construction sites shall be notified of the construction schedule in writing. Designate a “construction liaison” who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The liaison would address complaints starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and institute reasonable measures to correct the problem. • Conspicuously post a telephone number for the liaison at the construction site. Mitigation Measure NOISE 13-3 has been incorporated into the MMRP. Findings. Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record before the Planning Commission and City Council, the City Council finds that: 1. Effects of Mitigation: Constraints to daily construction times have been noted and a list of ways to lessen noise impacts have been included. Changes or modifications have been incorporated into the Project that lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR, although not to a level of insignificance. 2. Remaining Impacts: The impact of increased noise on businesses and residences during construction is significant and unavoidable. 3. Finding: No alternative (including the No Project alternative) or additional mitigation measure has been identified that would reduce this impact to a level of insignificance, and as a consequence mitigation to a level of insignificance is infeasible. (14 California Code of Regulations §15091(a)(3)). Impact 13-4: Construction-Related Vibration. Residences, businesses, and historic structures could be exposed to construction-related vibration during the excavation and foundation work of buildings. Mitigation 13-4. The following measures are recommended to reduce vibration from construction activities: ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Attachment 1 Exhibit A 12 • Avoid impact pile driving where possible. Drilled piles causes lower vibration levels where geological conditions permit their use. • Avoid using vibratory rollers and tampers near sensitive areas. • In areas where project construction is anticipated to include vibration-generating activities, such as pile driving, in close proximity to existing structures, site-specific vibration studies shall be conducted to determine the area of impact and to present appropriate mitigation measures that may include the following: - Identify sites that would include vibration compaction activities (such as pile driving) and have the potential to generate ground-borne vibration, and the sensitivity of nearby structures to ground-borne vibration. Vibration limits shall be applied to all vibration-sensitive structures located within 200 feet of the project. A qualified structural engineer should conduct this task. - Develop a vibration monitoring and construction contingency plan to identify structures where monitoring would be conducted, set up a vibration monitoring schedule, define structure specific vibration limits, and address the need to conduct photo, elevation, and crack surveys to document before and after construction conditions. - Design construction contingencies that would be implemented when vibration levels approached the limits. - At a minimum, conduct vibration monitoring during initial demolition activities and during pile driving activities. Monitoring results may indicate the need for more or less intensive measurements. - When vibration levels approach limits, suspend construction and implement contingencies to either lower vibration levels or secure the affected structures. • Conduct post-survey on structures under either of these circumstances: when construction monitoring has indicated high vibration levels or when complaints of damage have been made due to construction activities. Make appropriate repairs or compensation when damage has resulted from construction activities. Mitigation Measure Noise 13-4 has been incorporated into the MMRP. Findings. Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record before the Planning Commission and City Council, the City Council finds that: 1. Effects of Mitigation: Changes or alterations have been incorporated into the Project that lessens the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR, although not to a level of insignificance. Even with the above mitigation measures it may not be possible to avoid using pile drivers, vibratory rollers, and tampers entirely during construction facilitated by the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan. Due to the density of development in the area, some of these activities may take place near sensitive areas. In these cases, the mitigation measures listed above may not be sufficient to reduce groundborne vibrations below a level of significance. 2. Remaining Impacts: The Specific Plan would have a significant and unavoidable impact resulting from construction related vibration. ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Attachment 1 Exhibit A 13 3. Finding: No alternative (including the No Project alternative) or additional mitigation measures have been identified that would reduce this impact to a level of insignificance, and as a consequence mitigation to a level of insignificance is infeasible. (14 California Code of Regulations § 15091(a) B. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Impact 16-1: Cumulative Traffic Impacts. The Project would have a significant cumulative impact, relative to the City’s current LOS standard of D, at San Pablo Avenue/Cutting Boulevard, which would fall from LOS D in the Cumulative No Project case to LOS E in the Cumulative with Project case. Mitigation 16-1. Adoption and full implementation of the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan/Complete Streets Plan is projected to reduce auto trips relative to the baseline assumption in the impact analysis, which would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Furthermore, adoption of the plan would change the City’s LOS standard of D to an LOS goal of E, which should be considered in conjunction with the multi-modal LOS standards for transit, pedestrian and bicycle modes, with transit and pedestrian modes being the primary priorities in the corridor. This would also render the impact less-than-significant. However, because the projected mode shift cannot be guaranteed, and adoption of the proposed new multi-modal LOS goals as defined in the draft plan cannot be assured. Mitigation Measure TRAN 16-1 has been incorporated into the MMRP. Findings. Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record before the Planning Commission and City Council, the City Council finds that: 4. Effects of Mitigation: Changes or alterations have been incorporated into the Project that lessens the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR, although not to a level of insignificance. Because the projected mode shift cannot be guaranteed, and adoption of the proposed new multi-modal LOS goals as defined in the draft plan cannot be assured, the City cannot determine with certainty that this mitigation measure would reduce the potential impact cumulative traffic impacts to a less-than-significant level. 5. Remaining Impacts: The impacts to cumulative traffic would remain significant and unavoidable. 6. Finding: No alternative (including the No Project alternative) or additional mitigation measure has been identified that would reduce this impact to a level of insignificance, and as a consequence mitigation to a level of insignificance is infeasible. (14 California Code of Regulations §15091(a) ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Attachment 1 Exhibit A 14 V. FINDINGS FOR SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AVOIDED OR MITIGATED TO A LESS-THAN-SIGNIFICANT LEVEL Potentially significant impacts of the Specific Plan are listed below with applicable mitigation measures, all of which are included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan. For each of the impacts listed, the City Council finds that changes or alterations have been required in the Specific Plan, through the adoption of the MMRP, to mitigate or avoid the significant impacts on the environment (14 California Code of Regulations §15091(a)(1)), as described in this Section V. A. AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES Impact 4-2: Project Light and Glare Impacts. The San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan anticipates development on the surface parking lots around the El Cerrito Plaza and El Cerrito Del Norte BART stations. As part of this development, new parking structures for the BART stations and for other new development are anticipated. These parking structures may result in light and glare from vehicles using the parking structure at night. In addition, future multi-story buildings (or renovations) in the Specific Plan Area, if faced in reflective materials reflective glass), could result in glare impacts on adjacent and nearby properties. Mitigation 4-2. Project developers (including but not limited to BART) shall install landscaping and incorporate other measures into and around any Specific Plan Area future parking structure(s) (light source shielding, etc.) as necessary to ensure that potential light and glare from vehicles would be avoided toward the Ohlone Greenway, residential uses, and other sensitive uses, consistent with El Cerrito City Resolution 82-9 and the El Cerrito design review process. Regarding reflective building materials, for all future development in the Specific Plan Area, facades shall be of non-reflective materials, and windows shall incorporate non- reflective coating. Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the Planning Commission and City Council, the City Council finds that: 1. Effects of Mitigation: The mitigation has been incorporated in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) and it will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. The City finds that the utilizing the design review process and requiring facades to be constructed from non-reflective materials will cause the impact to be less than significant with implementation of the mitigation measure. 2. Remaining Impacts: Any remaining impacts related to impacts of light and glare would not be significant. Impact 5-1: Construction Period Emissions. Implementation of the Specific Plan would result ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Attachment 1 Exhibit A 15 in short-term emissions from construction activities associated with subsequent development, including site grading, asphalt paving, building construction, and architectural coating. Emissions commonly associated with construction activities include fugitive dust from soil disturbance, fuel combustion from mobile heavy-duty diesel- and gasoline- powered equipment, portable auxiliary equipment, and worker commute trips. During construction, 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. Demolition and renovation of buildings can also generate PM10 and PM2.5 emissions. 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. The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines do not identify plan-level thresholds that apply to construction. Although construction activities at individual project sites are expected to occur during a relatively short time period, the combination of temporary dust from activities and diesel exhaust from construction equipment poses both a health and nuisance impact to nearby receptors. In addition, NOX emissions during grading and soil import/export for large projects may exceed the BAAQMD NOX emission thresholds. Mitigation 5-1. Implement the following BAAQMD-recommended measures to control particulate matter emissions during construction. These measures would reduce diesel particulate matter and PM10 from construction to ensure that short-term health impacts to nearby sensitive receptors are avoided or reduced: Dust (PM10) Control Measures: • Water all active construction areas at least twice daily and more often during windy periods. Active areas adjacent to residences should be kept damp at all times. • Cover all hauling trucks or maintain at least two feet of freeboard. • Pave, apply water at least twice daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas. • Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas and sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is deposited onto the adjacent roads. • Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas previously graded areas that are inactive for 10 days or more). • Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil binders to exposed stockpiles. • Limit traffic speeds on any unpaved roads to 5 mph. • Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Attachment 1 Exhibit A 16 • Suspend construction activities that cause visible dust plumes to extend beyond the construction site. • Post a publically visible sign(s) with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. • Additional Measures to Reduce Diesel Particulate Matter and PM2.5 and other construction emissions: - The developer or contractor shall provide a plan for approval by the City or BAAQMD demonstrating that the heavy-duty (>50 horsepower) off-road vehicles to be used in the construction project, including owned, leased and subcontractor vehicles, will achieve a project wide fleet- average 20 percent NOX reduction and 45 percent particulate reduction compared to the most recent CARB fleet average for the year 2011. - Clear signage at all construction sites shall be posted indicating that diesel and gasoline equipment standing idle for more than two minutes shall be turned off. This would include trucks waiting to deliver or receive soil, aggregate or other bulk materials. Rotating drum concrete trucks could keep their engines running continuously as long as they were on-site or adjacent to the construction site. - The contractor shall install temporary electrical service whenever possible to avoid the need for independently powered equipment compressors). - Maintain written logs on site and available for review showing the maintenance of all gasoline and diesel engines on site to ensure low emissions. Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the Planning Commission and City Council, the City Council finds that: 1. Effects of Mitigation: The mitigation has been incorporated in the MMRP. The City finds that implementing the following BAAQMD-recommended measures to control particulate matter emissions during construction will reduce the impacts caused by diesel particulate matter and PM10 to ensure that short-term health impacts to nearby sensitive receptors are to a less-than-significant level. 2. Remaining Impacts: Any remaining impacts related to impacts of diesel particulate matter and PM10 would not be significant. Impact 5-2: Impacts of Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) on Sensitive Receptors. Implementation of the Specific Plan would result in the potential construction of a variety of projects. This construction would result in short-term emissions of diesel particulate matter (DPM), a TAC. Construction would result in the generation of DPM emissions from the use of off- road diesel equipment required for site grading and excavation, paving, and other construction activities. The amount to which the receptors are exposed (a function of concentration and duration of exposure) is the primary factor used to determine health risk potential exposure to ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Attachment 1 Exhibit A 17 TAC emission levels that exceed applicable standards). Health-related risks associated with diesel-exhaust emissions are primarily linked to long- term exposure and the associated risk of contracting cancer. The calculation of cancer risk associated with exposure to TACs is typically based on a 70-year period of exposure. The use of diesel- powered construction equipment, however, would be temporary and episodic and would occur over a relatively large area. Cancer risk and PM2.5 exposure would have to be analyzed through project-level analysis to identify the potential for significant impacts and measures to reduce those impacts to less-than-significant. Mitigation 5-2. Require project-level construction health risk assessment. Construction health risk assessment shall be required on a project-by- project basis, either through screening or refined modeling, to identify impacts and, if necessary, include performance standards and industry- recognized measures to reduce exposure. Reduction in health risk can be accomplished through, though is not limited to, the following measures: • Construction equipment selection; • Use of alternative fuels and engine retrofits, temporary line power or electric equipment; • Modified construction schedule; and • Implementation of BAAQMD Basic and/or Additional Construction Mitigation Measures for control of fugitive dust. Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the Planning Commission and City Council, the City Council finds that: 1. Effects of Mitigation: The mitigation has been incorporated in the MMRP and will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. The City finds that the requirement for a project-level construction health risk assessment is feasible and will reduce the impacts of TACs of sensitive receptors during construction to a less-than-significant level. 2. Remaining Impacts: Any remaining impacts related to impacts of TACs of sensitive receptors during construction would not be significant. Impact 5-3: Toxic Air Contaminant Exposure - Long-Term Operations. The Specific Plan would allow growth of new residential land uses that could include sensitive receptors, as well as new non-residential land uses that would be potential new emissions sources. Typically, these sources would be evaluated through the project-specific BAAQMD permit process or the CEQA process to identify and mitigate any significant exposures. However, some sources that would not be required to undergo such a review, such as truck loading docks or truck parking areas, may have the potential to cause significant increases in TAC exposure. While average daily traffic along Specific Plan Area surface streets is not readily available, the roadway screening analysis tables indicate that health risk from high volume surface streets such as Central Avenue, Carlson Boulevard, and Potrero Avenue would be less-than- significant at average daily traffic volumes (ADT) of 40,000 vehicles or less at a distance of 10 feet. If projects under the Specific Plan are located within close proximity to surface streets with daily traffic volumes higher than 40,000 ADT this would represent a potentially significant impact. ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Attachment 1 Exhibit A 18 Mitigation 5-3. Implement the following measures in site planning and building designs to reduce TAC and PM2.5 exposure where new receptors are located within the overlay distances identified above: • Future development under the Specific Plan that includes sensitive receptors (such as schools, hospitals, daycare centers, or retirement homes) located within the overlay distances from highways and stationary sources shall require site-specific analysis to determine the level of TAC and PM2.5 exposure, or for projects located near surface streets with daily traffic volumes exceeding 40,000 ADT. This analysis shall be conducted following procedures outlined by BAAQMD. If the site- specific analysis reveals significant exposures, such as cancer risk greater than 10 in one million or cumulative cancer risk greater than 100 in one million, additional measures shall be employed to reduce the risk to below the threshold. If this is not possible, the sensitive receptors shall be relocated. • Future non-residential developments would be evaluated through the CEQA process or BAAQMD permit process to ensure that they do not cause a significant health risk in terms of excess cancer risk greater than 10 in one million, acute or chronic hazards with a Hazard greater than 1.0, or annual PM2.5 exposures greater than 0.3 µg/m3, or a significant cumulative health risk in terms of excess cancer risk greater than 100 in one million, acute or chronic hazards with a Hazard Index greater than 10.0 or annual PM2.5 exposures greater than 0.8 µg/m3. • For significant cancer risk exposure, as defined by BAAQMD, indoor air filtration systems shall be installed to effectively reduce particulate levels to a less-than-significant level. Project sponsors shall submit performance specifications and design details to demonstrate that lifetime residential exposures would result in less-than- significant cancer risks (less than 10 in one million chances or 100 in one million for cumulative sources). • Air filtration systems installed shall be rated MERV-13 or higher, and a maintenance plan for the air filtration system shall be implemented. • Trees and/or vegetation shall be planted between sensitive receptors and pollution sources, if feasible. Trees that are best- suited to trapping particulate matter shall be planted, including the following: Pine (Pinus nigra var. maritime), Cypress (X Cupressocyparis leylandii), Hybrid popular (Populus deltoids X trichocarpa), and Redwoods (Sequoia sempervirens). • Sites shall be designed to locate sensitive receptors as far as possible from any freeways, roadways, diesel generators, distribution centers, and rail lines. • Operable windows, balconies, and building air intakes shall be located as far away from these sources as feasible. If near a distribution center, residents shall not be located immediately adjacent to a loading dock or where trucks concentrate to deliver goods. ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Attachment 1 Exhibit A 19 Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the Planning Commission and City Council, the City Council finds that: 1. Effects of Mitigation: The mitigation has been incorporated in the MMRP and will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. The City finds that the requirement for the following measures in site planning and building designs will reduce the impacts of TACs to a less-than-significant level. 2. Remaining Impacts: Any remaining long term impacts related to TACs would not be significant. B. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Impact 6-1: Potential Impacts on Nesting Birds and Roosting Bats. The Specific Plan is intended to improve and expand the natural environment in the Specific Plan Area, including the use of native and drought-tolerant plants (a beneficial environmental measure). Without a proactive mitigation procedure in place, Specific Plan implementation could inadvertently result in the removal of existing trees containing nests or eggs of migratory birds, raptors, or bird species during the nesting season, which would be considered an "unlawful take" under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and USFW provisions protecting migratory and nesting birds. In addition, roosting bats, several species of which are protected under the federal and State Endangered Species Acts, might be disturbed. Mitigation 6-1. The removal of trees, shrubs, or weedy vegetation shall be avoided during the February 1 through August 31 bird nesting period to the extent possible. If no vegetation or tree removal is proposed during the nesting period, no further action is required. If it is not feasible to avoid the nesting period, the project applicant shall retain a qualified wildlife biologist to conduct a survey for nesting birds no sooner than 14 days prior to the start of removal of trees, shrubs, grassland vegetation, buildings, grading, or other construction activity. Survey results shall be valid for 21 days following the survey; therefore, if vegetation or building removal is not started within 21 days of the survey, another survey shall be required. The area surveyed shall include all construction sites, access roads, and staging areas, as well as areas within 150 feet outside the boundaries of the areas to be cleared or as otherwise determined by the biologist. In the event that an active nest is discovered in the areas to be cleared, or in other habitats within 150 feet of construction boundaries, clearing and construction shall be postponed for at least two weeks or until a wildlife biologist has determined that the young have fledged (left the nest), the nest is vacated, and there is no evidence of second nesting attempts. 2) A qualified biologist shall conduct pre-construction surveys for bats and suitable bat roosting habitat at work sites where culverts, structures and/or trees would be removed or otherwise disturbed prior to the initiation of construction. If bats or suitable bat roosting habitat is detected, CDFW shall be notified immediately for consultation and possible on-site monitoring. Actions and can be implemented simultaneously. ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Attachment 1 Exhibit A 20 Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the Planning Commission and City Council, the City Council finds that: 1. Effects of Mitigation: The mitigation has been incorporated into the MMRP and will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. The City finds that the pre-construction surveys and measures for the avoidance of active nests and bats are feasible and will reduce potential impacts to nesting birds and bats to a less-than-significant level. 2. Remaining Impacts: Any remaining impacts to nesting birds and bats would not be significant. C. CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES Impact 7-2: Potential for Disturbance of Buried Archaeological Resources, Including Human Remains. Development facilitated by the Specific Plan could disturb unrecorded sensitive archaeological resources in the plan area. Mitigation 7-2. During the City’s standard project-specific environmental checklist review process for all future, discretionary, public improvement and private development projects in the Specific Plan area, the City shall determine the possible presence of, and the potential impacts of the action on, archaeological resources. For discretionary projects involving substantial ground disturbance (more than 10,000 square feet), the City shall require individual project applicants or environmental consultants to contact the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) to determine whether the particular project is located in a sensitive area. Future discretionary development projects that CHRIS determines may be located in a sensitive area--i.e., on or adjoining an identified archaeological site--shall proceed only after the project applicant contracts with a qualified archaeologist to conduct a determination in regard to cultural values remaining on the site and warranted mitigation measures. In general, to make an adequate determination in these instances, the archaeologist shall conduct a preliminary field inspection to assess the amount and location of visible ground surface, determine the nature and extent of previous impacts, and assess the nature and extent of potential impacts. Such field inspection may demonstrate the need for some form of additional subsurface testing excavation by auger, shovel, or backhoe unit) or, alternatively, the need for on-site monitoring of subsurface activities during grading or trenching). If a significant archaeological resource is identified through this field inspection process, the City and project applicant shall seek to avoid damaging effects on the resource. Preservation in place to maintain the relationship between the artifact(s) and the archaeological context is the preferred manner of mitigating impacts on an archaeological site. ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Attachment 1 Exhibit A 21 Preservation may be accomplished by: • Planning construction to avoid the archaeological site; • Incorporating the site within a park, green space, or other open space element; • Covering the site with a layer of chemically stable soil; or • Deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. When in-place mitigation is determined by the City to be infeasible, a data recovery plan, which makes provisions for adequate recovery of culturally or historically consequential information about the site, shall be prepared and adopted prior to any excavation being undertaken. Such studies shall be submitted to the CHRIS Northwest Information Center. If Native American artifacts are indicated, the studies shall also be submitted to the Native American Heritage Commission. Identified cultural resources shall be recorded on form DPR 422(archaeological sites). Mitigation measures recommended by these two groups and required by the City shall be undertaken, if necessary, prior to and during construction activities. A data recovery plan and data recovery shall not be required if the City determines that testing or studies already completed have adequately recovered the necessary data, provided that the data have already been documented in an EIR or are available for review at the CHRIS Northwest Information Center (CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4[b]). In the event that subsurface cultural resources are otherwise encountered during approved ground-disturbing activities for a plan area construction activity, work in the immediate vicinity shall be stopped and a qualified archaeologist retained to evaluate the finds following the procedures described above. Project personnel shall not collect cultural resources. If human remains are found, special rules set forth in State Health and Safety Code section 7050.5 and CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4(b) shall apply. Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the Planning Commission and City Council, the City Council finds that: 1. Effects of Mitigation: The mitigations have been incorporated into the MMRP and will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. The City finds that the requirement for a site- specific cultural resources study and technical report meeting state and federal requirements performed by a qualified archaeologist or equivalent cultural resources professional and treatment plans for identified resources as well as resources discovered during construction are feasible and will reduce potential impacts to archaeological resources to a less-than-significant level. 2. Remaining Impacts: Any remaining impacts to archaeological ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Attachment 1 Exhibit A 22 resources would not be significant. Impact 7-3: Potential for Disturbance of Paleontological Resources. Development facilitated by the Specific Plan could disturb unrecorded paleontological resources in the plan area. Mitigation 7-3. During the City’s standard project-specific environmental checklist review process for all future, discretionary, public improvement and private development projects in the Specific Plan area, the City shall determine the possible presence of, and the potential impacts of the action on, paleontological resources. For projects involving substantial ground disturbance (more than 10,000 square feet), the City shall require individual project applicants to carry out the following measures: Education Program. Project applicants shall implement a program that includes the following elements: • Resource identification training procedures for construction personnel; • Spot-checks by a qualified paleontological monitor of all excavations deeper than seven feet below ground surface; and • Procedures for reporting discoveries and their geologic context. Procedures for Resources Encountered. If subsurface paleontological resources are encountered, excavation shall halt in the vicinity of the resources, and the project paleontologist shall evaluate the resource and its stratigraphic context. The monitor shall be empowered to temporarily halt or redirect construction activities to ensure avoidance of adverse impacts to paleontological resources. During monitoring, if potentially significant paleontological resources are found, “standard” samples shall be collected and processed by a qualified paleontologist to recover micro vertebrate fossils. If significant fossils are found and collected, they shall be prepared to a reasonable point of identification. Excess sediment or matrix shall be removed from the specimens to reduce the bulk and cost of storage. Itemized catalogs of material collected and identified shall be provided to a local museum repository with the specimens. Significant fossils collected during this work, along with the itemized inventory of these specimens, shall be deposited in a local museum repository for permanent curatorship and storage. A report documenting the results of the monitoring and salvage activities, and the significance of the fossils, if any, shall be prepared. The report and inventory, when submitted to the City, shall signify the completion of the program to mitigate impacts on paleontological resources. Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the Planning Commission and City Council, the City Council finds that: 1. Effects of Mitigation: The mitigation has been incorporated into the MMRP and will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. The City finds that the requirement to educate earth ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Attachment 1 Exhibit A 23 moving crews on the appearance of fossils, procedures to follow if any are discovered, and ensuring that a paleontologist assess the significance of any fossil find, and recovers it, if appropriate are feasible and would reduce potential impacts to paleontological resources to a less-than- significant level. 2. Remaining Impacts: Any remaining impacts to paleontological resources would not be significant. D. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Impact 8-1: Potential Ground Instability Impacts. The potential for ground instability can depend on specific, highly localized underlying soil conditions. Determination of liquefaction, differential settlement, lateral spreading, and subsidence potential in the Specific Plan area would require site-specific geotechnical studies for future individual development proposals. Possible ground instability conditions, if not properly engineered for, could result in associated significant damage to project buildings and other improvements. Mitigation 8-1. Subject to City review and approval, complete and implement the geotechnical mitigation recommendations identified in the required site-specific geotechnical investigations and engineering studies, in coordination with City grading permit and building permit performance standards. Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the Planning Commission and City Council, the City Council finds that: 1. Effects of Mitigation: The mitigation has been incorporated into the MMRP and will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. The City finds that the requirement for site-specific geotechnical investigations and engineering studies would reduce potential impacts related to geologic stability to a less-than- significant level. 2. Remaining Impacts: Any remaining impacts related to geologic stability resources would not be significant. E. NOISE Impact 13-1: Noise and Land Use Compatibility. Residential land uses facilitated by the Specific Plan would be exposed to exterior noise levels exceeding 60 dBA Ldn from traffic noise and 70 dBA Ldn from BART noise. Future noise levels would exceed El Cerrito’s noise and land use compatibility standards. Mitigation 13-1. Future development would be exposed to outdoor noise levels exceeding acceptable levels as defined in the El Cerrito General Plan. Noise levels inside residential structures proposed in such noise environments would exceed 45 dBA Ldn, the local established ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Attachment 1 Exhibit A 24 land use compatibility threshold. In areas where residential developments would be exposed to an Ldn of greater than 60 dBA, El Cerrito General Plan Policy H3.9 requires the evaluation of mitigation measures for specific projects. • Utilize site planning to minimize noise in residential outdoor activity areas (shared outdoor space in multi-family developments) by locating the areas behind noise barriers, the buildings, in courtyards, or orienting the terraces to alleyways rather than streets, whenever possible. The goal is a maximum noise level of 60 dBA Ldn from roadway traffic and 70 dBA Ldn from BART noise. The City of El Cerrito requires project-specific acoustical analyses to achieve interior noise levels of 45 dBA Ldn or lower, and the adopted instantaneous noise levels in residential units exposed to exterior noise levels greater than 60 dBA Ldn should not exceed 50 dBA Lmax in bedrooms and 55 dBA Lmax in other rooms. Building sound insulation requirements would need to include the provision of forced-air mechanical ventilation in noise environments exceeding 60 dBA Ldn so that windows could be kept closed at the occupant’s discretion to control noise. Special building construction techniques sound rated windows and building facade treatments) may be required where exterior noise levels exceed 65 dBA Ldn. These treatments include, but are not limited to, sound rated windows and doors, sound rated exterior wall assemblies, acoustical caulking, etc. The specific determination of what treatments are necessary will be conducted on a unit-by-unit basis during project design. Results of the analysis, including the description of the necessary noise control treatments, will be submitted to the City, along with the building plans, which shall be revised as necessary or approved prior to issuance of a building permit. Feasible construction techniques such as these would adequately reduce interior noise levels to 45 dBA Ldn or lower and meet instantaneous noise limits. • Similar to above, noise insulation features shall be considered on a case-by-case basis for noise- sensitive offices and commercial uses proposed where noise levels exceed 65 dBA Ldn, in order to meet adopted noise standards. Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the Planning Commission and City Council, the City Council finds that: 1. Effects of Mitigation: The mitigation has been incorporated into the MMRP and will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. The City finds that the requirement for site-specific consideration outside noise levels and appropriate requirement of project- specific acoustical analyses would reduce potential impacts to noise and land use compatibility to a less-than- significant level. 2. Remaining Impacts: Any remaining impacts to noise and land use compatibility resources would not be significant. Impact 13-2: Commercial Development Noise. The Specific Plan would introduce commercial uses adjacent to residential land uses. Specific tenants for the commercial uses have ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Attachment 1 Exhibit A 25 not been identified, but uses would probably include retail stores, grocery stores, restaurants, or cafes. New commercial development proposed along with or next to residential development could result in noise levels exceeding City standards. Typical noise levels generated by loading and unloading would be similar to noise levels generated by truck movements on local roadways. Mechanical equipment would also have the potential to generate noise and would be a potential noise impact. Mitigation 13-2. New commercial development proposed in the same building as or adjacent to residential development could result in noise levels exceeding City standards. • Noise levels at residential property lines from commercial development shall be maintained not in excess of the general plan and municipal code limit for the City of El Cerrito. The approval of the commercial development shall require a noise study demonstrating how the business--including loading docks, refuse areas, and ventilation systems--would meet these requirements and would be consistent with the City’s noise standards. • Ensure that noise-generating activities, such as maintenance activities and loading and unloading activities are limited to the hours of 7:00 AM to 9:00 PM. Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the Planning Commission and City Council, the City Council finds that: 1. Effects of Mitigation: The mitigation has been incorporated into the MMRP and will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. The City finds that the requirement for approval of commercial development near residences to complete a noise study ensuring that the business would be consistent with the City’s noise standards and reduce potential impacts to commercial development noise to a less-than- significant level. 2. Remaining Impacts: Any remaining impacts related to commercial development noise would not be significant. VI. GROWTH INDUCING EFFECTS The City Council finds that implementation of the Specific Plan could result in a net increase in housing and population in the Specific Plan Area over existing conditions, as explained in Section 3.5 (Development Capacity Assumptions) and Chapter 14 (Population and Housing) of this EIR. The net increases through the horizon year of 2040 would be approximately 1,706 residential units and 3,840 residents. This capacity forecast is based on entitled and planned projects included in the development capacity assumptions, plus the potential development of projects in the Plan Area consistent with the Form-Based Code development standards. The direct increase in residential units and population could have an indirect economic “multiplier” effect, generating additional employment in the broader region. ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Attachment 1 Exhibit A 26 No substantial, detrimental, growth-inducing effect is expected. Specific Plan implementation would not extend roads or infrastructure through undeveloped or low-density areas; one of the main objectives of the Specific Plan is to facilitate new development efficiently and effectively in an area where roads and infrastructure already exist (see Chapter 3, Project Description). Any future individual development proposals outside the Plan Area would require standard local review of associated development applications, including CEQA-mandated development specific environmental review, to ensure that any adverse environmental impacts are adequately addressed. These existing requirements and procedures would be expected to avoid or reduce the potential environmental impacts of such secondary growth inducement associated with the Specific Plan to less-than-significant levels, except where specific CEQA statements of overriding consideration are adopted. VII. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES A. Background - Legal Requirements Section 15126.6(f) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR include a "reasonable range of alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would avoid or substantially lessen any significant effects of the project." Based on the analysis in the EIR, the Project would be expected to result in significant and unavoidable impacts in the impact areas of Scenic Vistas, Historic Resources; Construction Noise; Construction-Related Vibration; and Cumulative Traffic Impacts. The EIR alternatives were designed to avoid or reduce these significant unavoidable impacts, and to further reduce impacts that were found to be less than significant. The City Council has reviewed the significant impacts associated with the reasonable range of alternatives as compared to the Project, and in evaluating the alternatives has also considered each alternative's feasibility, taking into account a range of economic, environmental, social, legal, and other factors. In evaluating the alternatives, the City Council has also considered the important factors listed in the Statement of Overriding Considerations listed in Section IX below. Public Resources Code Section 21081(b)(3) provides that when approving a project for which an EIR has been prepared, a public agency may find that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Attachment 1 Exhibit A 27 B. Identification of Project Objectives The CEQA Guidelines state that the “range of potential alternatives to the proposed project shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic purposes of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects” of the project (CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(a)). The project objectives are listed in Section II of these Findings. C. Alternatives Analysis in EIR CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(c)) states that the “range of potential alternatives to the proposed project shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic purposes of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects” of the project. The “range of alternatives” is governed by the “rule of reason” which requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit an informed and reasoned choice by the decision-making body and informed public participation (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)). The Final EIR describes the alternatives considered and compares their impacts to the Project. The EIR evaluated four alternatives to the Project: • The No Project Alternative, • The Plan Bay Area 2040 Growth Allocations • The Mitigation of Significant Unavoidable Impacts; and • The Alternative Project Location. Alternative 1: No Project Alternative The No Project alternative is discussed on pages 20-3 to 20-6of the EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6 when a project is a revision to an existing land use or regulatory plan, the No Project alternative is the continuation of the existing land use or regulatory plan for the project site. The No Project alternative assumes existing General Plan designations and zoning would remain in place, and permitted building heights and development intensities would not increase. In addition, none of the public realm improvements called for in the Specific Plan (such as pocket parks, widened sidewalks, and parking garages) would be undertaken. Future development under the No Project alternative would occur, but would be undertaken in accordance with existing regulations including applicable project- specific environmental review. Explanation: The No Project alternative would result in the continuation of existing conditions in the Plan area. Compared to the Specific Plan, the potential environmental impacts from the No Project alternative would be of lesser or similar intensity than the Specific Plan in the areas of air quality, biological resources geology, hazards, noise, transportation, cultural resources, population and housing, soils and seismicity, and public services and utilities. The No Project alternative could have greater intensity of impacts than the Specific Plan in the areas of greenhouse gases and climate ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Attachment 1 Exhibit A 28 change, hydrology and water quality, although these would not increase so much as to create a new significant impact. Compared to the other alternatives, the No Project alternative has several impacts at a lesser intensity than the Specific Plan. This alternative also has three resource areas that have a greater intensity of impact compared to the Specific Plan and is the only alternative to have greater impacts than the Specific Plan. However, this is also the only alternative that would avoid some significant and unavoidable cumulative traffic impacts. Findings: Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the No Project Alternative, and therefore, this alternative is rejected for the following reasons: 1. With fewer new housing units, less population growth, and less pedestrian, bicycle, and transit circulation and connectivity no Specific Plan), the No Project alternative would be less effective in achieving the project objectives (listed Section II of this document), especially Goal A, Goal B, Goal D, and Goal E. 2. The No Project alternative would also not realize many of the benefits proposed by the Specific Plan. The development allowed under the existing zoning and General Plan would provide many fewer residential opportunities in the Specific Plan area (415 fewer new residential units than what is included in the Specific Plan). • Revitalize underutilized parcels and buildings; • Expand shopping, dining and neighborhood services to ensure a vibrant downtown. 3. Finally, by not including shade and view considerations, the No Project alternative would be less likely to ensure that Plan area development is sensitive to and compatible with adjacent neighborhoods. Alternative 2: Reduced Project Under Alternative 2, the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan would be adopted, but the net new residential development capacity assumptions for the plan area would be those listed in the Plan Bay Area “Final Forecast of Jobs, Population and Housing, Housing Growth by Jurisdiction and PDA/Investment Area, Contra Costa County” (July 2013). The boundaries of the San Pablo Avenue Corridor PDA described in Plan Bay Area match the Specific Plan area. Plan Bay Area shows growth of 1,010 net new residential units in the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Area between 2010 and 2040. Plan Bay Area does not provide population estimates for the PDAs; using the 2.25 persons per unit, population growth under Plan Bay Area would be 2,273. The proposed Specific Plan forecasts 1,706 net new residential units and population growth of 3,840 between 2010 and 2040 (see EIR Chapter 14, Population and Housing). ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Attachment 1 Exhibit A 29 From a policy perspective, Alternative 2 is considered substantially consistent with the adopted El Cerrito General Plan. The Reduced Project alternative is discussed on pages 20-7 to 20-9 of the EIR. Alternative 2 would result in 696 fewer new residential units and 1,567 fewer new residents than the proposed Specific Plan. Under the alternative, the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan would be adopted. Explanation: The Reduced Project alternative would result in a land use plan similar to the Specific Plan, but with a reduced amount of total development. Compared to the Specific Plan, the potential impacts from the reduced project alternative would be less substantial than those of the Specific Plan in the areas of air quality, biology, geology, greenhouse gases and climate change and soils. It would be approximately the same in terms of aesthetics and visual resources, cultural resources, hydrology and water quality, noise, population and housing, and public services and utilities. One significant and unavoidable impact of cumulative traffic would be reduced to a level of insignificance. This alternative would not result in any impacts that would be greater in intensity than those of the Specific Plan. CEQA requires the identification of an Environmentally Superior Alternative among the alternatives to the project. The Environmentally Superior Alternative is the alternative that would avoid or substantially lessen, to the greatest extent, the environmental impacts associated with the project while feasibly obtaining most of the major objectives of the project. Project Alternative 2 was determined to be the Environmentally Superior Alternative because it would lessen many of the impacts of the Specific Plan while meeting many of the project objectives. Findings: The Reduced Project Alternative is less desirable than the Project. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the Reduced Project Alternative, and therefore, this alternative is rejected for the following reasons: 1. Although the Reduced Project Alternative has been found to be the environmentally superior alternative, it only reduces one significant and unavoidable impacts of the Project to a level of insignificance. Significant and unavoidable impacts regarding aesthetic and visual resources, cultural resources, and noise would remain. 2. While the Reduced Project Alternative lessens Project impacts, this reduction is due entirely to fewer people residing in, and less development in, the Plan area. Those not residing on this site would be displaced to housing located in other areas, which could be located at a greater distance from public transit, services and employment and generate per capita emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases equal to or greater than those generated by the Project. Commercial development not occurring on the site would also be displaced to other areas. Consequently, environmental impacts may not be lessened on a statewide or regionwide basis. If the housing or commercial development is displaced to locations within the City, impacts on population and housing and public utilities and energy would remain essentially the same, and greenhouse gas emissions per service area population would likely be higher because there would be less access to public transit. ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Attachment 1 Exhibit A 30 3. With fewer new housing units and less population growth, Alternative 2 would be less effective in achieving the project objectives (listed at the beginning of this chapter) related to maximizing pedestrian- and transit-oriented development (see Goal A, Goal B, Goal D, and Goal Alternative 3: Mitigation of Significant Unavoidable Impacts. The Reduced Commercial/Retail Space Alternative is discussed on pages 20-9 to 20-11 of the EIR. Under Alternative 3, the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan would be adopted, and the EIR development capacity assumptions would remain the same. However, EIR-identified significant unavoidable impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels. These significant unavoidable impacts are listed below; their full descriptions are in the appropriate EIR chapter (Impact 4-1 is in Chapter 4; Impact 7-1 is in Chapter 7, etc.). • Impact 4-1: Project Impacts on Scenic Vistas • Impact 7-1: Destruction/Degradation of Historic Resources • Impact 13-3: Construction Noise • Impact 13-4: Construction-Related Vibration • Impact 16-1: Cumulative Traffic Impacts Both the proposed Specific Plan and Alternative 3 forecast 1,706 net new residential units and population growth of 3,840 between 2010 and 2040 (see EIR Chapter 14, Population and Housing). From a policy perspective, Alternative 3 is considered substantially consistent with the adopted El Cerrito General Plan. (see EIR Chapter 18, Project Consistency With Local and Regional Plans, Tables 18.1 and 18.2). Alternative 3 would result in revisions to the proposed Specific Plan in order to reduce the EIR-identified significant unavoidable impacts to less-than- significant levels. Under this alternative, a revised Specific Plan would be adopted. Explanation: Under Alternative 3, the project’s significant unavoidable impact on: Scenic Vistas (Impact 4-1) would be reduced to a less-than-significant level by revising Form- Based Code (FBC) Section 2.05.03.01.03 (View Design Guidelines). The section would be revised to make those guidelines mandatory standards and not only “strongly recommended” guidelines. The revision would prohibit any new development that would interfere with scenic views of Mt. Tamalpais, the Golden Gate Bridge, the San Francisco skyline, the East Bay Hills, and Albany Hill from public rights-of-way (roadways and sidewalks), the two BART stations (El Cerrito Plaza and El Cerrito del Norte), and areas of lower elevation hillside homes located in El Cerrito and Richmond. Historic Resources (Impact 7-1) would be reduced to a less-than-significant level by requiring that no historic resource be demolished and that changes to historic resources adhere to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings or ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Attachment 1 Exhibit A 31 Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings, or be moved to a new location such that the resource retains its eligibility for listing on the California Register (see Mitigation 7-1 [a and Construction noise and construction-related vibration impacts (Impacts 13-3 and 13-4) would be reduced to less-than significant levels by adjusting the cumulative construction schedules of approved projects - including their locations, activities, and time periods - so that construction noise and vibration would be reduced to what the City would codify as a less-than-significant level the City would prepare and adopt “cumulative construction noise and vibration regulations”). Traffic impacts, specifically the San Pablo Avenue/Cutting Boulevard intersection (Impact 16-1) would be reduced to a less-than-significant level by mandating the mode shift evaluated in Chapter 16 (Transportation and Circulation) of this EIR. This might be accomplished by requiring traffic monitoring for each future individual development, then requiring as necessary more aggressive Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies to meet the mode shift. Findings: The Mitigation of Significant Unavoidable Impacts Alternative is less desirable than the Project. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the Mitigation of Significant Unavoidable Impacts Alternative, and therefore, this alternative is rejected for the following reasons: 1. The City of El Cerrito would like to state without exception that no view will be blocked, no historic resource removed, no exceptional construction related vibration or noise will occur and that everyone will meet or exceed our highest expectations for mode shift. However, that is simply not practical for three reasons. 1. There may be a project that is so compelling, the community decision makers may determine that is acceptable to allow one or more of those impacts to exist. 2. Mandating maximum compulsory mode shift is neither always possible nor enforceable. 3. Before the capacity of planning year horizon is met, future decision makers may have different values than the one who authored this Plan. 2. Alternative 3 would be less effective in achieving Goal B and Goal C of the project objectives (listed at the beginning of this chapter) because the mandated reduction of the identified significant unavoidable impacts might be considered infeasible within the particular context of a future, site-specific development proposal. Related to Goals B (Ensure Return on Investment) and C (Encourage Practical and Market Friendly Development), the City might not attract a desired potential development if an applicant considers Alternative 3 too restrictive and lacking the flexibility to formulate innovative, feasible solutions between the City and the applicant. Alternative 4: Alternatives Considered But Rejected, Alternative Project Location The Reduced Residential alternative is discussed on pages 20-11 to 20-13 of the EIR. Section 15126.6(a) of the CEQA Guidelines states, “An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Attachment 1 Exhibit A 32 alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic project objectives but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project[.]” Further, section 15126.6(c) explains, “Among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are: failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, (ii) infeasibility, or (iii) inability to avoid significant environmental effects.” To help clarify the meaning of “feasibility,” CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(f)(1) (Rule of Reason/Feasibility) states, “Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries...and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have access to the alternative site….No one of these factors establishes a fixed limit on the scope of reasonable alternatives.” Explanation : El Cerrito is an incorporated city surrounded by other communities. The 174.1- acre Specific Plan area is surrounded by existing development. The San Pablo Avenue corridor has been identified in several adopted plans--including the El Cerrito General Plan and Plan Bay Area--as an area of growth due in part to its convenient location in the Bay Area and to the infrastructure already in place transportation network, BART, utility systems). This situation provides an opportunity to accommodate projected growth while preserving existing, adjacent, single family and other low density neighborhoods. An alternative location for the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan would not be feasible. In essence, implementation of the Specific Plan in an alternative location would result in a new mixed use neighborhood in another place more distant from the two El Cerrito BART stations and existing infrastructure. None of the proposed Specific Plan objectives related to enhancing the existing plan area environment--especially those pertaining to the plan area’s location in, and contribution to, a regional network of communities and transportation opportunities—would be attained. In addition, the CEQA Guidelines provide that the alternatives evaluated in an EIR should be selected based on their ability to avoid or substantially lessen the significant Impacts of the proposed project. Even if an alternative location for the project could implement the project objectives, only those locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant impacts of the project need to be considered in the EIR. In the case of the proposed San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan, for identified significant unavoidable impacts, these impacts cannot be avoided or substantially reduced by additional, feasible mitigation measures or due to the programmatic EIR analysis appropriate for the long-term Specific Plan, the details of site-specific, future development proposals are not known at this time. Transferring these unavoidable and other potentially significant impacts to an alternative location would still substantially affect the environment, possibly worse than in the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan area, where coordinated infrastructure, plans, regulations, and services are already in place to help mitigate potential environmental impacts. Finding: Because an alternative project location would be infeasible, would not achieve the project objectives, and would not necessarily avoid or lessen the significant impacts of the project and ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Attachment 1 Exhibit A 33 might result in new significant impacts, an alternative that would involve a different project location was eliminated from further detailed consideration. No further evaluation of alternative project locations is required under CEQA. VIII. CHANGES TO THE SPECIFIC PLAN, CIRCUMSTANCES AND NEW INFORMATION The City Council finds that no significant new information within the meaning of Public Resources Code § 21092.1 and State CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5 has been added to the EIR since the Draft EIR was circulated for public review. In responding to comments, CEQA does not require the EIR authors to conduct every test or perform all research or study suggested by commenters. Rather, the EIR authors need only respond to significant environmental issues and need not provide all of the information requested by the reviewers, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR (CEQA Guidelines sections 15088, 15132, and 15204). The City Council finds that the public has had a meaningful opportunity to comment upon all substantial adverse environmental effects of the Plan and all feasible ways to mitigate or avoid such effects. As applicable to the CEQA process, the Draft EIR refers to components of the Specific Plan and summarizes or quotes those components. After public release of the June 2014 Specific Plan document and the Draft EIR, City of El Cerrito staff made revisions to the Specific Plan (“Revisions to June 2014 Final Draft”), including in response to concerns raised by the public. In some cases, revisions to the June 2014 Specific Plan have resulted in parallel revisions to the Draft EIR. These EIR revisions are included as part of Final EIR section 3 (Revisions to the Draft EIR). City Council finds that none of the criteria listed in CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5 (Recirculation of an EIR Prior to Certification) has been met as a result of the revisions. IX. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS RELATED TO THE PROJECT FINDINGS The City Council adopts and makes the following Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding the significant unavoidable impacts of the Project. After review of the entire administrative record, the City Council finds that, pursuant to CEQA section 21081(b) and CEQA Guidelines section 15093, specific economic, legal, social, technological and other benefits of the Project outweigh the Project’s unavoidable adverse impacts and the City Council finds that the significant and unavoidable adverse impacts are acceptable in light of the Project’s benefits. A. Significant Unavoidable Impacts With respect to the foregoing findings and in recognition of those facts that are included in the entire administrative record, the City has determined that the Project would result in significant unavoidable aesthetic, cultural, noise and transportation impacts, as described in Section IV of these Findings. ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Attachment 1 Exhibit A 34 The City hereby finds that, where possible, changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project that substantially lessens the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR. The project and the MMRP incorporate all feasible mitigation measures to reduce potential environmental impacts to the greatest extent feasible. The City further finds that there are no additional feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that could be imposed or adopted to eliminate the significant and unavoidable impacts listed above. These impacts could not be reduced to a less- than-significant level by feasible changes, mitigation measures or alternatives to the Project. B. Overriding Considerations The City Council has carefully balanced the benefits of the Project against any adverse impacts identified in the EIR that could not be feasibly mitigated to a level of insignificance. The City Council finds that each of the specific environmental, economic, fiscal, social, housing and other overriding considerations set forth below constitutes a separate and independent ground for a finding that the benefits of the Project outweigh its significant adverse environmental impacts and is an overriding consideration warranting approval of the Project. The City Council specifically adopts and makes this Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding the significant unavoidable impacts of the Project and the anticipated benefits of the Project. Substantial evidence in the record demonstrates the City would derive the following substantial public benefits from adoption and implementation of the Project: 1. The Project is the product of a transparent, multi-year process designed to develop community consensus. The Project has benefitted from high levels of public outreach and participation, and has been informed by appropriate analyses. In addition to large attendance at the community workshops, the Planning Commission and City Council both conducted a detailed and public review of the Draft Specific Plan and provided clear direction that has been comprehensively addressed. As a result, the Project is reflective of the community’s diverse preferences and goals. 2. The Project will enhance the public realm, through an integrated network of public spaces, including widened sidewalks, plazas and parks, that invites strolling and public gathering and allows for community life, identity and sense of place. The Project’s comprehensive public space network supports a more active, vibrant downtown and healthier living by encouraging walking, biking and social gathering. 3. The Project will create a more active, vibrant urban area, with a mix of commercial and residential uses that complement and support one another and bring vitality, including increased retail sales, to the area. The addition of new commercial space will help to locate more opportunities for employment in El Cerrito. In addition, the Project will establish standards and guidelines that encourage development of underutilized and vacant land on San Pablo Avenue while ensuring a building character that is modulated visually interesting. ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Attachment 1 Exhibit A 35 4. The Project recognizes and promotes healthy living and activity by encouraging walking, biking and access to transit as alternatives to vehicular use, supported by widened sidewalks and new bicycle facilities; enhanced public spaces; development intensity focusing on the two BART stations; and a greater mix and diversity of uses. The Project takes a comprehensive approach to sustainability and carbon emissions reduction, utilizing standards integrated with best practices and guidelines for both public and private improvements. The Project also encourages context sensitive design. X. SEVERABILITY If any term, provision, or portion of these Findings or the application of these Findings to a particular situation is held by a court to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of these Findings, or their application to other actions related to the Plan, shall continue in full force and effect unless amended or modified by the City. ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 1 (1756-04).doc 8/25/2014 MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST--SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN The environmental mitigation measures listed in column two below have been incorporated into the conditions of approval for the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan in order to mitigate identified environmental impacts. A completed and signed chart will indicate that each mitigation requirement has been complied with, and that City and state monitoring requirements have been fulfilled with respect to Public Resources Code section 21081.6. MONITORING VERIFICATION IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE (Performance Criteria) Implementation Entity Monitoring and Verification Entity Timing Requirements Signature Date AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES Impact 4-1: Project Impacts on Scenic Vistas. Specific Plan implementation could interfere with scenic views of Mt. Tamalpais, the Golden Gate Bridge, the San Francisco skyline, the East Bay Hills, and Albany Hill from public rights-of-way (roadways and sidewalks), the two BART station platforms (El Cerrito Plaza and El Cerrito Del Norte), and areas of lower elevation hillside homes located in El Cerrito and Richmond. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Mitigation 4-1. For future City decision-making actions for individual project proposals under the Specific Plan, Specific Plan Section 2.02 (Administration of Regulating Code) shall be implemented as it applies to the proposal’s potential effect on scenic vistas. The City shall require evaluation (including visual simulations, if deemed necessary) of the proposal’s visual effect as viewed from important on-site and off-site viewpoints, including public rights-of- way of east-west streets (roadways and sidewalks) and the two BART station platforms in the Specific Plan area (El Cerrito Plaza and El Cerrito Del Norte). The evaluation shall address the proposal’s effect on views of Mt. Tamalpais, the Golden Gate Bridge, the San Francisco skyline, the East Bay Hills, and Albany Hill. This mitigation shall be enforceable by its incorporation into the Specific Plan as a City-adopted policy and shall be implemented through subsequent permits, conditions, agreements, or other measures consistent with Specific Plan Section 2.02. Incorporation of this measure would reduce the impact on scenic vistas. However, because the outcome of this decision-making process for any individual, future proposal cannot be guaranteed within the framework of City; Individual project applicants City During individual project review Agenda Item No. 6(B) Attachment 1 Exh. B ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 2 (1756-04).doc 8/25/2014 MONITORING VERIFICATION IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE (Performance Criteria) Implementation Entity Monitoring and Verification Entity Timing Requirements Signature Date this program EIR, the impact is considered significant and unavoidable. Impact 4-2: Project Light and Glare Impacts. The San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan anticipates development on the surface parking lots around the El Cerrito Plaza and El Cerrito Del Norte BART stations. As part of this development, new parking structures for the BART stations and for other new development are anticipated. These parking structures may result in light and glare from vehicles using the parking structure at night. In addition, future multi-story buildings (or renovations) in the Specific Plan area, if faced in reflective materials reflective glass), could result in glare impacts on adjacent and nearby properties. These impacts related to light and glare are considered a potentially significant. Mitigation 4-2. Project developers (including but not limited to BART) shall install landscaping and incorporate other measures into and around any Specific Plan area future parking structure(s) (light source shielding, etc.) as necessary to ensure that potential light and glare from vehicles would be avoided toward the Ohlone Greenway, residential uses, and other sensitive uses, consistent with El Cerrito City Resolution 82-9 and the El Cerrito design review process. With this requirement incorporated into the local design review process, the light and glare impact of future parking structures would be less-than-significant. Regarding reflective building materials, for all future development in the Specific Plan area, facades shall be of non-reflective materials, and windows shall incorporate non- reflective coating. This requirement would reduce potential glare impacts of building materials to a less-than- significant level. Individual project applicants Individual project applicants City City During individual project review; Condition of occupancy permit issuance Condition of building permit issuance; Condition of occupancy permit issuance AIR QUALITY Impact 5-1: Construction Period Emissions. Implementation of the Specific Plan would result in short-term emissions from construction activities associated with subsequent development, including site grading, asphalt paving, building construction, and architectural coating. Emissions commonly associated with construction activities include fugitive dust from soil Mitigation 5-1. Implement the following BAAQMD-recommended measures to control particulate matter emissions during construction. These measures would reduce diesel particulate matter, PM10, and PM2.5 from construction to ensure that short- term health impacts to nearby sensitive receptors are avoided or reduced: Individual project applicants City Condition of grading permit issuance; Condition of building permit issuance; Field verify implementation during grading and construction ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 3 (1756-04).doc 8/25/2014 MONITORING VERIFICATION IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE (Performance Criteria) Implementation Entity Monitoring and Verification Entity Timing Requirements Signature Date disturbance, fuel combustion from mobile heavy-duty diesel- and gasoline- powered equipment, portable auxiliary equipment, and worker commute trips. During construction, 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. Demolition and renovation of buildings can also generate PM10 and PM2.5 emissions. 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. The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines do not identify plan-level thresholds that apply to construction. Although construction activities at individual project sites are expected to occur during a relatively short time period, the combination of temporary dust from activities and diesel exhaust from construction equipment poses both a health and nuisance impact to nearby receptors. In addition, NOX emissions during grading and soil import/export for large projects may exceed the BAAQMD NOX emission thresholds. Without application of appropriate control measures to reduce construction dust and exhaust, construction period impacts would be considered a potentially significant impact. Dust (PM10 and PM2.5) Control Measures:  Water all active construction areas at least twice daily and more often during windy periods. Active areas adjacent to residences should be kept damp at all times.  Cover all hauling trucks or maintain at least two feet of freeboard.  Pave, apply water at least twice daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas.  Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas and sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is deposited onto the adjacent roads.  Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas previously graded areas that are inactive for 10 days or more).  Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil binders to exposed stockpiles.  Limit traffic speeds on any unpaved roads to 15 mph.  Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 4 (1756-04).doc 8/25/2014 MONITORING VERIFICATION IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE (Performance Criteria) Implementation Entity Monitoring and Verification Entity Timing Requirements Signature Date  Suspend construction activities that cause visible dust plumes to extend beyond the construction site.  Post a publically visible sign(s) with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Additional Measures to Reduce Diesel Particulate Matter and PM2.5 and other construction emissions:  The developer or contractor shall provide a plan for approval by the City or BAAQMD demonstrating that the heavy-duty (>50 horsepower) off-road vehicles to be used in the construction project, including owned, leased and subcontractor vehicles, will achieve a project wide fleet- average 20 percent NOX reduction and 45 percent particulate reduction compared to the most recent CARB fleet average for the year 2011.  Clear signage at all construction sites shall be posted indicating that diesel and gasoline equipment standing idle for more than five minutes shall be turned off. This would include trucks waiting to deliver or receive soil, ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 5 (1756-04).doc 8/25/2014 MONITORING VERIFICATION IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE (Performance Criteria) Implementation Entity Monitoring and Verification Entity Timing Requirements Signature Date aggregate, or other bulk materials. Rotating drum concrete trucks could keep their engines running continuously as long as they were on-site or adjacent to the construction site.  The contractor shall install temporary electrical service whenever possible to avoid the need for independently powered equipment compressors).  Properly tune and maintain equipment for low emissions. Implementation of these measures would reduce project construction- related air quality impacts to a less- than-significant level. Impact 5-2: Impacts of Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) on Sensitive Receptors. Implementation of the Specific Plan would result in the potential construction of a variety of projects. This construction would result in short-term emissions of diesel particulate matter (DPM), a TAC. Construction would result in the generation of DPM emissions from the use of off-road diesel equipment required for site grading and excavation, paving, and other construction activities. The amount to which the receptors are exposed (a function of concentration and duration of exposure) is the primary factor used to determine health risk potential exposure to TAC emission levels that exceed applicable standards). Health-related risks associated with diesel-exhaust emissions are primarily linked to long- Mitigation 5-2. Require project-level construction health risk assessment. Construction health risk assessment shall be required on a project-by- project basis, either through screening or refined modeling, to identify impacts and, if necessary, include performance standards and industry-recognized measures to reduce exposure. Reduction in health risk can be accomplished through, though is not limited to, the following measures:  Construction equipment selection;  Use of alternative fuels and engine retrofits, temporary line power or electric equipment;  Modified construction schedule; and Individual project applicants City During individual project review (health risk assessment); Condition of grading permit issuance; Condition of building permit issuance; Field verify implementation during grading and construction ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 6 (1756-04).doc 8/25/2014 MONITORING VERIFICATION IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE (Performance Criteria) Implementation Entity Monitoring and Verification Entity Timing Requirements Signature Date term exposure and the associated risk of contracting cancer. The calculation of cancer risk associated with exposure to TACs is typically based on a 70-year period of exposure. The use of diesel- powered construction equipment, however, would be temporary and episodic and would occur over a relatively large area. Cancer risk and PM2.5 exposure would have to be analyzed through project-level analysis to identify the potential for significant impacts and measures to reduce those impacts to less-than-significant. Health risks associated with temporary construction would, therefore, be considered a potentially significant impact.  Implementation of BAAQMD Basic and/or Additional Construction Mitigation Measures for control of fugitive dust. Implementation of these industry- recognized measures would reduce TAC construction impacts to a less- than-significant level. Impact 5-3: Toxic Air Contaminant Exposure Long-Term Operations. The Specific Plan would allow growth of new residential land uses that could include sensitive receptors, as well as new non-residential land uses that would be potential new emissions sources. Typically, these sources would be evaluated through the project-specific BAAQMD permit process or the CEQA process to identify and mitigate any significant exposures. However, some sources that would not be required to undergo such a review, such as truck loading docks or truck parking areas, may have the potential to cause significant increases in TAC exposure. While average daily traffic along Specific Plan area surface streets is not readily available, the roadway screening analysis tables indicate that health risk from high volume surface streets such as Central Avenue, Carlson Boulevard, and Potrero Avenue would be less-than- significant at average daily traffic Mitigation 5-3. Implement the following measures in site planning and building designs to reduce TAC and PM2.5 exposure where new receptors are located within the overlay distances identified above:  Future development under the Specific Plan that includes sensitive receptors (such as schools, hospitals, daycare centers, or retirement homes) located within the overlay distances from highways and stationary sources shall require site-specific analysis to determine the level of TAC and PM2.5 exposure, or for projects located near surface streets with daily traffic volumes exceeding 40,000 ADT. This analysis shall be conducted following procedures outlined by BAAQMD. If the site- specific analysis reveals significant exposures, such as Individual project applicants City During individual project review (site-specific analysis); Condition of building permit issuance ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 7 (1756-04).doc 8/25/2014 MONITORING VERIFICATION IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE (Performance Criteria) Implementation Entity Monitoring and Verification Entity Timing Requirements Signature Date volumes (ADT) of 40,000 vehicles or less at a distance of 10 feet. If projects under the Specific Plan are located within close proximity to surface streets with daily traffic volumes higher than 40,000 ADT this would represent a potentially significant impact. cancer risk greater than 10 in one million or cumulative cancer risk greater than 100 in one million, additional measures shall be employed to reduce the risk to below the threshold. If this is not possible, the sensitive receptors shall be relocated.  Future non-residential developments would be evaluated through the CEQA process or BAAQMD permit process to ensure that they do not cause a significant health risk in terms of excess cancer risk greater than 10 in one million, acute or chronic hazards with a Hazard Index greater than 1.0, or annual PM2.5 exposures greater than 0.3 µg/m3, or a significant cumulative health risk in terms of excess cancer risk greater than 100 in one million, acute or chronic hazards with a Hazard Index greater than 10.0, or annual PM2.5 exposures greater than 0.8 µg/m3.  For significant cancer risk exposure, as defined by BAAQMD, indoor air filtration systems shall be installed to effectively reduce particulate levels to a less-than-significant level. Project sponsors shall submit performance specifications and design details to demonstrate that lifetime residential exposures would result in less-than- significant cancer risks (less than 10 in one million chances or 100 in one million for cumulative sources). ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 8 (1756-04).doc 8/25/2014 MONITORING VERIFICATION IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE (Performance Criteria) Implementation Entity Monitoring and Verification Entity Timing Requirements Signature Date  Air filtration systems installed shall be rated MERV-13 or higher, and a maintenance plan for the air filtration system shall be implemented.  Trees and/or vegetation shall be planted between sensitive receptors and pollution sources, if feasible. Trees that are best- suited to trapping particulate matter shall be planted, including the following: Pine (Pinus nigra var. maritime), Cypress (X Cupressocyparis leylandii), Hybrid popular (Populus deltoids X trichocarpa), and Redwoods (Sequoia sempervirens).  Sites shall be designed to locate sensitive receptors as far as possible from any freeways, roadways, diesel generators, distribution centers, and rail lines.  Operable windows, balconies, and building air intakes shall be located as far away from these sources as feasible. If near a distribution center, residents shall not be located immediately adjacent to a loading dock or where trucks concentrate to deliver goods. Implementation of these measures would reduce air quality impacts to a less-than-significant level. ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 9 (1756-04).doc 8/25/2014 MONITORING VERIFICATION IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE (Performance Criteria) Implementation Entity Monitoring and Verification Entity Timing Requirements Signature Date BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Impact 6-1: Potential Impacts on Nesting Birds and Roosting Bats. The Specific Plan is intended to improve and expand the natural environment in the Specific Plan area, including the use of native and drought-tolerant plants (a beneficial environmental measure). Without a proactive mitigation procedure in place, Specific Plan implementation could inadvertently result in the removal of existing trees containing nests or eggs of migratory birds, raptors, or bird species during the nesting season, which would be considered an "unlawful take" under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and USFW provisions protecting migratory and nesting birds. In addition, roosting bats, several species of which are protected under the federal and State Endangered Species Acts, might be disturbed. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Mitigation 6-1. The removal of trees, shrubs, or weedy vegetation shall be avoided during the February 1 through August 31 bird nesting period to the extent possible. If no vegetation or tree removal is proposed during the nesting period, no further action is required. If it is not feasible to avoid the nesting period, the project applicant shall retain a qualified wildlife biologist to conduct a survey for nesting birds no sooner than 14 days prior to the start of removal of trees, shrubs, grassland vegetation, buildings, grading, or other construction activity. Survey results shall be valid for 21 days following the survey; therefore, if vegetation or building removal is not started within 21 days of the survey, another survey shall be required. The area surveyed shall include all construction sites, access roads, and staging areas, as well as areas within 150 feet outside the boundaries of the areas to be cleared or as otherwise determined by the biologist. In the event that an active nest is discovered in the areas to be cleared, or in other habitats within 150 feet of construction boundaries, clearing and construction shall be postponed for at least two weeks or until a wildlife biologist has determined that the young have fledged (left the nest), the nest is vacated, and there is no evidence of second nesting attempts. Implementation of this measure would reduce the impact to a less-than- significant level. Individual project applicants City Condition of grading permit issuance; Field verify implementation during grading ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 10 (1756-04).doc 8/25/2014 MONITORING VERIFICATION IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE (Performance Criteria) Implementation Entity Monitoring and Verification Entity Timing Requirements Signature Date A qualified biologist shall conduct pre-construction surveys for bats and suitable bat roosting habitat at work sites where culverts, structures and/or trees would be removed or otherwise disturbed prior to the initiation of construction. If bats or suitable bat roosting habitat is detected, CDFW shall be notified immediately for consultation and possible on-site monitoring. Implementation of this measure would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. Actions and can be implemented simultaneously. Individual project applicants City Condition of grading permit issuance; Field verify implementation during grading CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES Impact 7-1: Destruction/Degradation of Historic Resources. There may be one or more properties or features within the plan area that meet the CEQA definition of a historic resource, including properties or features already listed, or properties or features eligible for listing, in a local, State, or Federal register of historic resources. Future development projects that are otherwise consistent with the proposed Specific Plan may cause substantial adverse changes in the significance of one or more such historic resources. Substantial adverse changes that may occur include physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of one or more historic resources or its immediate surroundings such that the resource is "materially impaired." The significance of a historic resource would be considered potentially "materially impaired" when and if an individual future development project proposes to Mitigation 7-1. For any individual discretionary project within the Specific Plan area that the City determines may involve a property that contains a potentially significant historic resource a recorded historic resource or an unrecorded building or structure 50 years or older), the resource shall be evaluated by City staff, and if warranted, shall be assessed by a qualified professional on the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) list of consultants who meet the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards to determine whether the property is a significant historical resource and whether or not the project may have a potentially significant adverse effect on the historical resource. If, based on the recommendation of the qualified professional, the City determines that the project may have a potentially City; Individual project applicants City During individual project review; Condition of grading permit issuance; Condition of building permit issuance; Field verify implementation during grading and construction; Condition of occupancy permit issuance ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 11 (1756-04).doc 8/25/2014 MONITORING VERIFICATION IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE (Performance Criteria) Implementation Entity Monitoring and Verification Entity Timing Requirements Signature Date demolish or materially alter the physical characteristics that justify the determination of its significance (CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5[b]). Such adverse changes in the significance of a CEQA-defined historic resource would be a significant impact. significant effect, the City shall require the applicant to implement the following mitigation measures: Adhere to one or both of the following Secretary of the Interior’s Standards:  Secretary of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings; or  Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. The qualified professional shall make a recommendation to the City as to whether the project fully adheres to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, and any specific modifications necessary to do so. The final determination as to a project's adherence to the Standards shall be made by the City body with final decision-making authority over the project. Such a determination of individual project adherence to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards will constitute mitigation of the project historic resource impacts to a less- than-significant level (CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5). If measure is not feasible, the historic resource shall be moved to a new location compatible with the original character and use of the historical resource, and its historic ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 12 (1756-04).doc 8/25/2014 MONITORING VERIFICATION IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE (Performance Criteria) Implementation Entity Monitoring and Verification Entity Timing Requirements Signature Date features and compatibility in orientation, setting, and general environment shall be retained, such that the resource retains its eligibility for listing on the California Register. If neither measure nor measure is feasible, a project-specific EIR shall be required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, particularly in order for specific project alternatives to be designed and evaluated. If after that CEQA process, neither measure nor is found to be feasible, then the City shall, as applicable and to the extent feasible, implement the following measures in the following order: Document the historic resource before any changes that would cause a loss of integrity and loss of continued eligibility. The documentation shall adhere to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Architectural and Engineering Documentation. The level of documentation shall be proportionate with the level of significance of the resource. The documentation shall be made available for inclusion in the Historic American Building Survey (HABS) or the Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) Collections in the Library of Congress, the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), and the Bancroft Library, as well as local libraries and historical societies, such as the El Cerrito Historical Society. Retain and reuse the historic resource to the maximum feasible ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 13 (1756-04).doc 8/25/2014 MONITORING VERIFICATION IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE (Performance Criteria) Implementation Entity Monitoring and Verification Entity Timing Requirements Signature Date extent and continue to apply the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards to the maximum feasible extent in all alterations, additions, and new construction. Through careful methods of planned deconstruction to avoid damage and loss, salvage character- defining features and materials for educational and interpretive use on- site, or for reuse in new construction on the site in a way that commemorates their original use and significance. Interpret the historical significance of the resource through a permanent exhibit or program in a publicly accessible location on the site or elsewhere within the Specific Plan area. Implementation of measures and/or would reduce a significant impact on historic resources. However, this program EIR is prohibited from speculating on the details of any future individual development proposal and its potential impact on a historic resource, and the City cannot determine with certainty that this mitigation measure would reduce the potential impact of any individual project on a historic resource to a less-than-significant level. Consequently, this impact may remain significant and unavoidable. Impact 7-2: Potential for Disturbance of Buried Archaeological Resources, Including Human Remains. Development facilitated by the Specific Plan could disturb unrecorded sensitive Mitigation 7-2. During the City’s standard project-specific environmental checklist review process for all future, discretionary, public improvement and private City; Individual project applicants City During individual project review; Condition of grading permit issuance; Field ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 14 (1756-04).doc 8/25/2014 MONITORING VERIFICATION IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE (Performance Criteria) Implementation Entity Monitoring and Verification Entity Timing Requirements Signature Date archaeological resources in the plan area. This possibility represents a potentially significant impact. development projects in the Specific Plan area, the City shall determine the possible presence of, and the potential impacts of the action on, archaeological resources. For discretionary projects involving substantial ground disturbance (more than 10,000 square feet), the City shall require individual project applicants or environmental consultants to contact the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) to determine whether the particular project is located in a sensitive area. Future discretionary development projects that CHRIS determines may be located in a sensitive area--i.e., on or adjoining an identified archaeological site--shall proceed only after the project applicant contracts with a qualified archaeologist to conduct a determination in regard to cultural values remaining on the site and warranted mitigation measures. In general, to make an adequate determination in these instances, the archaeologist shall conduct a preliminary field inspection to assess the amount and location of visible ground surface, determine the nature and extent of previous impacts, and assess the nature and extent of potential impacts. Such field inspection may demonstrate the need for some form of additional subsurface testing excavation by auger, shovel, or backhoe unit) or, alternatively, the need for on-site monitoring of subsurface activities during grading or trenching). verify implementation during grading ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 15 (1756-04).doc 8/25/2014 MONITORING VERIFICATION IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE (Performance Criteria) Implementation Entity Monitoring and Verification Entity Timing Requirements Signature Date If a significant archaeological resource is identified through this field inspection process, the City and project applicant shall seek to avoid damaging effects on the resource. Preservation in place to maintain the relationship between the artifact(s) and the archaeological context is the preferred manner of mitigating impacts on an archaeological site. Preservation may be accomplished by:  Planning construction to avoid the archaeological site;  Incorporating the site within a park, green space, or other open space element;  Covering the site with a layer of chemically stable soil; or  Deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. When in-place mitigation is determined by the City to be infeasible, a data recovery plan, which makes provisions for adequate recovery of culturally or historically consequential information about the site, shall be prepared and adopted prior to any excavation being undertaken. Such studies shall be submitted to the CHRIS Northwest Information Center. If Native American artifacts are indicated, the studies shall also be submitted to the Native American Heritage Commission. Identified cultural resources shall be recorded on form DPR 422 ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 16 (1756-04).doc 8/25/2014 MONITORING VERIFICATION IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE (Performance Criteria) Implementation Entity Monitoring and Verification Entity Timing Requirements Signature Date (archaeological sites). Mitigation measures recommended by these two groups and required by the City shall be undertaken, if necessary, prior to and during construction activities. A data recovery plan and data recovery shall not be required if the City determines that testing or studies already completed have adequately recovered the necessary data, provided that the data have already been documented in an EIR or are available for review at the CHRIS Northwest Information Center (CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4[b]). In the event that subsurface cultural resources are otherwise encountered during approved ground-disturbing activities for a plan area construction activity, work in the immediate vicinity shall be stopped and a qualified archaeologist retained to evaluate the finds following the procedures described above. Project personnel shall not collect cultural resources. If human remains are found, special rules set forth in State Health and Safety Code section 7050.5 and CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4(b) shall apply. Implementation of this measure would reduce the impact to a less-than- significant level. Impact 7-3: Potential for Disturbance of Paleontological Resources. Development facilitated by the Specific Plan could disturb unrecorded paleontological resources in the plan Mitigation 7-3. During the City’s standard project-specific environmental checklist review process for all future, discretionary, public improvement and private City; Individual project applicants City During individual project review; Condition of grading permit issuance; Field verify ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 17 (1756-04).doc 8/25/2014 MONITORING VERIFICATION IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE (Performance Criteria) Implementation Entity Monitoring and Verification Entity Timing Requirements Signature Date area. This possibility represents a potentially significant impact. development projects in the Specific Plan area, the City shall determine the possible presence of, and the potential impacts of the action on, paleontological resources. For projects involving substantial ground disturbance (more than 10,000 square feet), the City shall require individual project applicants to carry out the following measures: Education Program. Project applicants shall implement a program that includes the following elements:  Resource identification training procedures for construction personnel;  Spot-checks by a qualified paleontological monitor of all excavations deeper than seven feet below ground surface; and  Procedures for reporting discoveries and their geologic context. Procedures for Resources Encountered. If subsurface paleontological resources are encountered, excavation shall halt in the vicinity of the resources, and the project paleontologist shall evaluate the resource and its stratigraphic context. The monitor shall be empowered to temporarily halt or redirect construction activities to ensure avoidance of adverse impacts to paleontological resources. During monitoring, if potentially significant paleontological resources are found, “standard” samples shall be collected implementation during grading ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 18 (1756-04).doc 8/25/2014 MONITORING VERIFICATION IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE (Performance Criteria) Implementation Entity Monitoring and Verification Entity Timing Requirements Signature Date and processed by a qualified paleontologist to recover micro vertebrate fossils. If significant fossils are found and collected, they shall be prepared to a reasonable point of identification. Excess sediment or matrix shall be removed from the specimens to reduce the bulk and cost of storage. Itemized catalogs of material collected and identified shall be provided to a local museum repository with the specimens. Significant fossils collected during this work, along with the itemized inventory of these specimens, shall be deposited in a local museum repository for permanent curatorship and storage. A report documenting the results of the monitoring and salvage activities, and the significance of the fossils, if any, shall be prepared. The report and inventory, when submitted to the City, shall signify the completion of the program to mitigate impacts on paleontological resources. Implementation of this measure would reduce the impact to a less-than- significant level. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Impact 8-1: Potential Ground Instability Impacts. The potential for ground instability can depend on specific, highly localized underlying soil conditions. Determination of liquefaction, differential settlement, lateral spreading, and subsidence potential in the Specific Plan area would require site-specific geotechnical studies for future individual development proposals. Possible ground instability conditions, if not properly engineered Mitigation 8-1. Subject to City review and approval, complete and implement the geotechnical mitigation recommendations identified in the required site-specific geotechnical investigations and engineering studies, in coordination with City grading permit and building permit performance standards. Project incorporation of this mitigation requirement would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Individual project applicants City During individual project review; Condition of grading permit issuance; Condition of building permit issuance; Field verify implementation during grading and construction ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 19 (1756-04).doc 8/25/2014 MONITORING VERIFICATION IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE (Performance Criteria) Implementation Entity Monitoring and Verification Entity Timing Requirements Signature Date for, could result in associated significant damage to project buildings and other improvements, representing a potentially significant impact. NOISE Impact 13-1: Noise and Land Use Compatibility. Residential land uses facilitated by the Specific Plan would be exposed to exterior noise levels exceeding 60 dBA Ldn from traffic noise and 70 dBA Ldn from BART noise. Future noise levels would exceed both El Cerrito’s and Richmond’s noise and land use compatibility standards. This is a potentially significant impact. Mitigation 13-1. Future development would be exposed to outdoor noise levels exceeding acceptable levels as defined in the El Cerrito and Richmond general plans. Noise levels inside residential structures proposed in such noise environments would exceed 45 dBA Ldn, the local established land use compatibility threshold. In areas where residential developments would be exposed to an Ldn of greater than 60 dBA, El Cerrito General Plan Policy H3.9 requires the evaluation of mitigation measures for specific projects. In Richmond General Plan Action SN4.A, new noise-sensitive uses that are located in an area with day-night average sound levels (Ldn) of 55 or greater require a noise study report; the report shall identify noise mitigation measures that limit noise to an acceptable level compared to existing conditions.  Utilize site planning to minimize noise in residential outdoor activity areas (shared outdoor space in multi-family developments) by locating the areas behind noise barriers, the buildings, in courtyards, or orienting the terraces to alleyways rather than streets, whenever possible. The goal is a maximum noise level of 60 dBA Ldn from roadway traffic and 70 dBA Ldn from BART noise. Individual project applicants City During individual project review; Condition of building permit issuance; Condition of occupancy permit issuance ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 20 (1756-04).doc 8/25/2014 MONITORING VERIFICATION IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE (Performance Criteria) Implementation Entity Monitoring and Verification Entity Timing Requirements Signature Date The City of El Cerrito requires project-specific acoustical analyses to achieve interior noise levels of 45 dBA Ldn or lower, and the adopted instantaneous noise levels in residential units exposed to exterior noise levels greater than 60 dBA Ldn should not exceed 50 dBA Lmax in bedrooms and 55 dBA Lmax in other rooms. Building sound insulation requirements would need to include the provision of forced-air mechanical ventilation in noise environments exceeding 60 dBA Ldn so that windows could be kept closed at the occupant’s discretion to control noise. Special building construction techniques sound rated windows and building facade treatments) may be required where exterior noise levels exceed 65 dBA Ldn. These treatments include, but are not limited to, sound rated windows and doors, sound rated exterior wall assemblies, acoustical caulking, etc. The specific determination of what treatments are necessary will be conducted on a unit-by-unit basis during project design. Results of the analysis, including the description of the necessary noise control treatments, will be submitted to the City, along with the building plans, which shall be revised as necessary or approved prior to issuance of a building permit. Feasible construction techniques such as these would adequately reduce interior noise levels to 45 ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 21 (1756-04).doc 8/25/2014 MONITORING VERIFICATION IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE (Performance Criteria) Implementation Entity Monitoring and Verification Entity Timing Requirements Signature Date dBA Ldn or lower and meet instantaneous noise limits.  Similar to above, noise insulation features shall be considered on a case-by-case basis for noise- sensitive offices and commercial uses proposed where noise levels exceed 65 dBA Ldn, in order to meet adopted noise standards.  Implementation of these measures would reduce potential noise and land use compatibility impacts to a less-than- significant level. Impact 13-2: Commercial Development Noise. The San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan would introduce commercial uses adjacent to residential land uses. Specific tenants for the commercial uses have not been identified, but uses would probably include retail stores, grocery stores, restaurants, or cafes. New commercial development proposed along with or next to residential development could result in noise levels exceeding City standards. Typical noise levels generated by loading and unloading would be similar to noise levels generated by truck movements on local roadways. Mechanical equipment would also have the potential to generate noise and would be a potential noise impact. This is a potentially significant impact. Mitigation 13-2. New commercial development proposed in the same building as or adjacent to residential development could result in noise levels exceeding City standards.  Noise levels at residential property lines from commercial development shall be maintained not in excess of the general plan and municipal code limits for the Cities of El Cerrito and Richmond. The approval of the commercial development shall require a noise study demonstrating how the business--including loading docks, refuse areas, and ventilation systems--would meet these requirements and would be consistent with the respective City’s noise standards.  Ensure that noise-generating activities, such as maintenance activities and loading and unloading activities, are limited to the hours of 7:00 AM to 9:00 PM. Individual project applicants City During individual project review; Condition of building permit issuance; Condition of occupancy permit issuance ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 22 (1756-04).doc 8/25/2014 MONITORING VERIFICATION IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE (Performance Criteria) Implementation Entity Monitoring and Verification Entity Timing Requirements Signature Date Implementation of these measures would reduce the potential commercial development noise impacts to a less- than-significant level. Impact 13-3: Construction Noise. Businesses and residences would be intermittently exposed to high levels of noise throughout the 2040 plan horizon. Construction would elevate noise levels at adjacent businesses and residences by 15 to 20 dBA or more. This is a significant impact. Mitigation 13-3. Construction equipment shall be well-maintained and used judiciously to be as quiet as practical. The following measures, when applicable, are recommended to reduce noise from construction activities:  Equip all internal combustion engine-driven equipment with mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment.  Utilize “quiet” models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists.  Locate stationary noise- generating equipment as far as feasible from sensitive receptors when sensitive receptors adjoin or are near a construction area.  Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines.  Pre-drill foundation pile holes to minimize the number of impacts required to seat the pile.  Construct solid plywood fences around construction sites adjacent to operational business, residences, or noise-sensitive land uses. Individual project applicants City Condition of grading permit issuance; Condition of building permit issuance; Field verify implementation during grading and construction ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 23 (1756-04).doc 8/25/2014 MONITORING VERIFICATION IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE (Performance Criteria) Implementation Entity Monitoring and Verification Entity Timing Requirements Signature Date  A temporary noise control blanket barrier could be erected, if necessary, along building facades facing construction sites. This mitigation would only be necessary if conflicts occurred which were irresolvable by proper scheduling. Noise control blanket barriers can be rented and quickly erected.  Route construction-related traffic along major roadways and as far as feasible from sensitive receptors.  Ensure that construction activities (including the loading and unloading of materials and truck movements) are limited to the hours of 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM on weekdays and between the hours of 9:00 AM and 8:00 PM on weekends and holidays.  Ensure that excavating, grading, and filling activities (including warming of equipment motors) are limited to between the hours of 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM on weekdays and between the hours of 9:00 AM and 8:00 PM on weekends and holidays. Businesses, residences, or noise- sensitive land uses adjacent to construction sites shall be notified of the construction schedule in writing. Designate a “construction liaison” who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The liaison would ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 24 (1756-04).doc 8/25/2014 MONITORING VERIFICATION IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE (Performance Criteria) Implementation Entity Monitoring and Verification Entity Timing Requirements Signature Date determine the cause of the noise complaints starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and institute reasonable measures to correct the problem. Conspicuously post a telephone number for the liaison at the construction site. Although the above measures would reduce noise generated by construction, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable as a result of the extended period of time that adjacent receivers could be exposed to construction noise. Impact 13-4: Construction-Related Vibration. Residences, businesses, and historic structures could be exposed to construction-related vibration during the excavation and foundation work of buildings. This is a significant impact. Mitigation 13-4. The following measures are recommended to reduce vibration from construction activities:  Avoid impact pile driving where possible. Drilled piles causes lower vibration levels where geological conditions permit their use.  Avoid using vibratory rollers and tampers near sensitive areas.  In areas where project construction is anticipated to include vibration-generating activities, such as pile driving, in close proximity to existing structures, site-specific vibration studies shall be conducted to determine the area of impact and to present appropriate mitigation measures that may include the following: Individual project applicants City Condition of grading permit issuance; Condition of building permit issuance; Field verify implementation during grading and construction ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 25 (1756-04).doc 8/25/2014 MONITORING VERIFICATION IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE (Performance Criteria) Implementation Entity Monitoring and Verification Entity Timing Requirements Signature Date - Identify sites that would include vibration compaction activities (such as pile driving) and have the potential to generate ground-borne vibration, and the sensitivity of nearby structures to ground-borne vibration. Vibration limits shall be applied to all vibration-sensitive structures located within 200 feet of the project. A qualified structural engineer should conduct this task. - Develop a vibration monitoring and construction contingency plan to identify structures where monitoring would be conducted, set up a vibration monitoring schedule, define structure- specific vibration limits, and address the need to conduct photo, elevation, and crack surveys to document before and after construction conditions. - Design construction contingencies that would be implemented when vibration levels approached the limits. - At a minimum, conduct vibration monitoring during initial demolition activities and during pile driving activities. Monitoring results may indicate the need for more or less intensive measurements. - When vibration levels approach limits, suspend construction and implement contingencies to ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 26 (1756-04).doc 8/25/2014 MONITORING VERIFICATION IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE (Performance Criteria) Implementation Entity Monitoring and Verification Entity Timing Requirements Signature Date either lower vibration levels or secure the affected structures. Conduct post-survey on structures under either of these circumstances: when construction monitoring has indicated high vibration levels or when complaints of damage have been made due to construction activities. Make appropriate repairs or compensation when damage has resulted from construction activities. It may not be possible to avoid using pile drivers, vibratory rollers, and tampers entirely during construction facilitated by the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan. Due to the density of development in the area, some of these activities may take place near sensitive areas. In these cases, the mitigation measures listed above may not be sufficient to reduce ground- borne vibrations below a level of significance. Therefore, this impact would be significant and unavoidable. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Impact 16-1: Cumulative Traffic Impacts. The project would have a significant cumulative impact, relative to the City’s current LOS standard of D, at San Pablo Avenue/Cutting Boulevard, which would fall from LOS D in the Cumulative No Project case to LOS E in the Cumulative With Project case. This would be a significant project impact. Mitigation 16-1. Adoption and full implementation of the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan/Complete Streets Plan is projected to reduce auto trips relative to the baseline assumption in the impact analysis, which would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Furthermore, adoption of the plan would change the City’s LOS standard City; Individual project applicants City Condition of occupancy permit issuance (fair- share of multi- modal improvements) ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 27 (1756-04).doc 8/25/2014 MONITORING VERIFICATION IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE (Performance Criteria) Implementation Entity Monitoring and Verification Entity Timing Requirements Signature Date of D to an LOS goal of E, which should be considered in conjunction with the multi-modal LOS standards for transit, pedestrian and bicycle modes, with transit and pedestrian modes being the primary priorities in the corridor. This would also render the impact less-than-significant. However, because the projected mode shift cannot be guaranteed, and adoption of the proposed new multi-modal LOS goals as defined in the draft plan cannot be assured, the impact relative to the current City LOS standard remains significant and unavoidable after mitigation. ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Attachment 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF EL CERRITO CITY COUNCIL APPROVING OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA WHEREAS, in Resolution PC 14-12, Exhibit 1, the Planning Commission considered the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan (SPASP) project and recommended that the City Council certify the EIR; and WHEREAS, in Resolution PC 14-12 the Planning Commission considered the SPASP and recommended that the City Council adopt the SPASP; and WHEREAS, in furtherance of the SPASP, the Planning Commission of the City of El Cerrito recommended that the City Council adopt an amendment to the General Plan to add the land use designation of the SPASP to provide for a vision for the future of San Pablo Avenue that adopts context-sensitive regulations to be applied throughout the Plan area. The Plan’s key principles are to deepen a sense of place and community identity, attract private investment, strengthen partnerships, enhance the public realm, promote the everyday use of transit, walking, and biking, and foster environmental sustainability through a streamlined, tiered review process, increased development intensity thresholds, and supportive design guidelines; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of El Cerrito recommended that the City Council adopt an amendment to the General Plan to change the land use designation for certain property currently zoned/described as the 174 acres of the Plan that exist within the City of El Cerrito’s jurisdiction. The Plan area extends for approximately 2.5 miles from El Cerrito Plaza and El Cerrito’s border with the City of Albany on the south to the Ohlone Greenway near the BART tracks and Baxter Creek on the north. At the south end of the Plan area, the project boundary extends east to include the El Cerrito Plaza BART Station and west along Central Avenue to I-80. Generally, the Plan area includes the San Pablo Avenue roadway and the parcels fronting on the avenue; and WHEREAS, the provisions of the Government Code, 65350, et. seq. have been complied with, including that the City has not previously adopted four amendments to the mandatory elements of the General Plan in calendar year 2014; and WHEREAS, on September 22, 2014, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the appeal; and WHEREAS, at the September 22, 2014 meeting the City Council adopted Resolution 2014- XX certifying the Environmental Impact Report, adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the SPASP; 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 General Plan Amendment. ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Attachment 2 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: The City Council of the City of El Cerrito finds that: 1. The proposed amendment is deemed to be in the public interest. The SPASP is in the public interest because it adopts context-sensitive regulations to be applied throughout the Plan area. The Plan’s key principles are to strengthen a sense of place, ensure return on investment, encourage practical and market friendly development, enhance and humanize the public realm and catalyze mode shift. 2. The proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the rest of the General Plan and any implementation programs that may be affected. The SPASP is consistent in all significant respects with the General Plan; in that supports the spirit and intent of all of the existing goals and policies listed in the General Plan related to the San Pablo Avenue corridor. It will greatly enhance the Del Norte, Midtown and El Cerrito Plaza areas of the city by establishing context based development parameters. In particular, the goals and policies listed in the Strategic Framework, The Community Development and Design, and the Transportation and Circulation Chapters. 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 SPASP shall be implemented in compliance with all appropriate sections of the El Cerrito Municipal Code, including the Building and Fire Codes as well as in concert with its Programmatic Environmental Impact Report, ensuring that it will not be detrimental to the public’s health, safety or welfare. 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). A Programmatic Environmental Impact Report was prepared for the San Pablo Specific Plan in full compliance with applicable provisions of the California Government Code and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council certify the EIR as set forth in Resolution 2014-XX and the City Council certified the EIR, adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. I CERTIFY that at a regular meeting on September 22, 2014, the El Cerrito City Council passed this Resolution by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ---PAGE BREAK--- IN WITNESS of this action, I sign this document and affix the corporate seal of the City of El Cerrito on September X, 2014. Cheryl Morse, City Clerk APPROVED: Janet Abelson, Mayor Exhibit 1 – General Plan Text Exhibit 2 – General Plan Map ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Attachment 2 Exhibit A PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN TO IMPLEMENT THE SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN Strikethrough indicates deletion; red indicates insertion CHAPTER 2: STRATEGIC APPROACH Page 2-4 Amend text to: 5. San Pablo Avenue Corridor Design Guidelines Specific Plan Page 2-6 Amend Figure 1: Strategic Action Plan, to: Primary Action Strategies: San Pablo Avenue Corridor Design Guidelines Specific Plan Page 2-12 Amend text to: 5. San Pablo Avenue Corridor Design Guidelines Specific Plan … The San Pablo Avenue Corridor contains El Cerrito’s main north-south arterial, with extensive commercial development based on automobile access. This development pattern is consistent with development along San Pablo Avenue as it continues through the neighboring communities of Richmond, Albany, and Berkeley. The San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan, including Form-Based Code, Complete Streets Plan and Infrastructure Analysis, Design Guidelines for San Pablo Avenue will provides direction for the enhancement of existing business and the development of new business opportunities. These improvements will create an attractive and functional development pattern that meets today’s retail and office needs. The design guidelines Form Based Code will addresses transit-oriented mixed-use commercial development, high-density residential uses, public spaces, and streetscapes design. Residential area guidelines will address density, parking, pedestrian access, noise, and open space needs for new and rehab of existing residential areas. Mixed use commercial area Plan guidelines will address density and development intensity, parking, multimodal access (pedestrian and auto) and circulation, signage, open space and setback requirements, land use buffer areas, and building design and image characteristics. Streetscape Complete Streets guidelines will recommend the use of landscaping, street furniture, and lighting to improve the experiences of both pedestrian, bicycle, transit and automobile users of San Pablo Avenue. The pedestrian experience can will be further improved by creating public open spaces such as pocket parks, plazas, midblock connections, greenways, and repurposed and temporary open spaces, courtyards, and street bulb outs, and creating a stronger buffer between the ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Attachment 2 Exhibit A sidewalk and automobile traffic. Streetscape design guidelines should include on and off street parking strategies, standards for pedestrian crossing and intersection design, sidewalk widths, street tree planting, signal timing and other functional issues such as ease of movement, pedestrian safety and security, and accessibility. Responsible Organization: City of El Cerrito Participating Organizations: City of Richmond Caltrans San Pablo Avenue Business Association West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee (WCCTAC) AC Transit BART Time Frame: Mid-Term (3-5 years) Potential Funding Sources: City of El Cerrito El Cerrito Redevelopment Agency Caltrans Various regional, State and federal grants ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Attachment 2 Exhibit A CHAPTER 4: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN Page 4-4 Amend text to: Growth Strategy This General Plan calls for a balanced growth strategy with emphasis on retail and office uses. The Plan assumes that all commercial growth and most residential growth will take place within the San Pablo Avenue corridor. Specifically, the Plan assumes 189,350 square feet of additional retail space, 166,570 square feet of additional office space, and 775 new housing units. The development regulations of the San Pablo Specific Plan would result in a net new development capacity of 1706 new dwelling units and 243,112 square feet of new commercial space by the year 2040. Of these totals, tThe only development assumed to be someplace other than the San Pablo Avenue corridor outside the Specific Plan area are 90 housing units, which represent a combination of accessory units and infill of vacant lots. Page 4-6 Add footnote to Table 4-1: Land Area by Type of Use, to: **In 2014, the 174.1 San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan area in El Cerrito includes: 29.4 acres of Residential, 108.5 acres of Commercial, 5.2 acres of Mixed-Use, 12.2 acres of Public, 4.9 acres of Parks, and 10.6 acres of Parking. The Plan re-zones all parcels within the Plan area to Transit-Oriented Mixed-Use and includes reduced automobile parking standards and privately-owned public open space requirements. Page 4-12 Add text: San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Area The San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan articulates a vision for the future of San Pablo Avenue, identifies improvements, and adopts context-sensitive regulations that can be applied along its length and to adjacent areas. The Plan’s Form-Based Code regulates land use and development standards based on Transect Zone, Transit-Oriented High-Intensity Mixed Use (TOHIMU) and Transit- Oriented Mid-Intensity Mixed-Use (TOMIMU), designed to encourage vertical and horizontal mixed-use. The TOHIMU zone emphasizes commercial uses on the ground floor with upper residential uses to activate the pedestrian right-of-way and cluster services near transit nodes. The TOMIMU zone allows for “flex” spaces on the bottom floors to accommodate ground floor commercial where needed, but emphasizing mid-intensity residential uses to increase housing along the transportation corridor to encourage walking, biking and public transit use. Page 4-13 Amend text to: ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Attachment 2 Exhibit A Development Densities and Intensities The density and intensity ranges for the above land use categories are as shown on Table 4-2. Residential and mixed-use projects shall comply with both the floor-area ratio (FAR) requirements and the density requirements, except that the FAR for projects built pursuant to state-mandated density bonuses may be increased beyond the city’s allowable limits if necessary to accommodate the increased density. Projects located within the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Area will not have to comply with FAR requirements, but will instead be regulated by form-based regulations including a maximum building height, ground floor and upper floor setbacks, and open space requirements. Projects consistent as an affordable housing project as defined by State law are eligible for a height increase. Page 4-14 Amend text to: For purposes of interpreting Table 4-2, the following definitions apply: • Density is the number of permanent residential dwelling units per total net acre of land in the development site, except in the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Area where density is defined in terms of height. • Floor area ratio (FAR) is the gross floor area, excluding the area devoted exclusively to parking, divided by the total net area of the development site. • Incentives may include density bonuses, FAR bonuses, and other benefits that the City may grant in return for special benefits provided by the development project to the City; density and FAR bonuses may only be given pursuant to the criteria contained in the City’s zoning or other land use regulations. In order to convert density expressed in units per acre to density expressed in persons per acre, multiply by 2.32, the 1998 estimate by the California Department of Finance for the average number of persons per household in El Cerrito. ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Attachment 2 Exhibit A The City has an incentives program in place (Zoning Ordinance Chapter 19.2332, adopted 1977, amended 1997 2008). Under the program, development incentives may be granted for a project where the incentives will promote closer adherence to City objectives. Incentives may include increased density reduced parking, greater building height, or other deviations from regular zoning standards. In exchange for such incentives, the City will require desirable features, such as exceptional design, creative design of off-street parking, enhancements to public amenities, environmental benefits such as creek restoration, and similar benefits to the community. The program most frequently has been used for minor density increases in projects ranging from 5 to 20 dwelling unites, never exceeding 40 units per acre. The program has allowed more substantial density increases for projects for the elderly and disabled, up to 76 units per acre. Some of those Table 4-2: Density and Intensity Ranges Density (du/acre) Intensity (FAR) Normal Range With City Incentives per Zoning Ordinance Section 19.23 With State- Mandated Density Bonuses Normal Range With City Incentives Residential Very Low Density Up to 6 NA Up to 7.5 NA NA Low Density 7-10 NA 7-12.5 NA NA Medium Density 11-20 11-25 11-25 NA NA High Density 21-35 21-45* 21-45 NA NA Mixed-Use Commercial General Up to 35 Up to 45* Up to 45 Up to 2.0 Up to 3.0 Neighborhood Commercial Up to 20 Up to 25 Up to 25 Up to 1.0 NA San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Area Transit-Oriented High Intensity Mixed-Use (TOHIMU) Transit-Oriented Mid-Intensity Mixed-Use (TOMIMU) Up to 65’** Up to 55’** NA** NA** Up to 85’** Up to 65’** NA NA Parks and Open Space NA NA NA Up to 0.1 Up to 0.5 Institutional and Utilities NA NA NA Up to 1.0 Up to 2.0 *Within the High Density Residential and Mixed-Use Commercial land use categories, up to 70 dwelling units per acre may be allowed through a city density-bonus incentive program for housing for elderly and handicapped persons where there is a commitment to provide services such as congregate care, onsite counseling, or medical services for residents. **The San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan includes a Form-Based Code that does not prescribe building densities based on dwelling units per acre, but instead regulates the physical form of the building. Within the Plan Area, there is a building height limit of 65’ in the Transit–Oriented Higher Intensity Mixed Use Transect and 55’ in the Transit–Oriented Mid- Intensity Mixed Use Transect. Height bonuses may be allowed through a Tier IV Entitlement Process or through the State-Mandated Density Bonus program. ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Attachment 2 Exhibit A projects have also been granted increased height, reduced parking, and reduced setbacks. Appendix G is a tabulation of the results of applying the Incentives Program from 1983 through 1997. Projects within the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Area should refer to the Administration of the Regulating Code section of the Specific Plan for further information on development incentives. Page 4-16 – 4-23 Amend Land Use Goals and Policies to: Goal LU1: A high-quality residential character within El Cerrito. LU1.5 Suitable Housing. Promote suitably located housing and services for all age groups within the city. Within the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan area, allow ground floor residential development and increased land use intensity close to existing transit infrastructure to promote residential infill development and catalyze mode shift. • Development Regulations (zoning) • Housing Program • Redevelopment Program • San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan LU1.7 Maximum Density. Maintain the maximum multifamily density at 35 dwelling units per acre, except in the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan area and as otherwise provided in this Plan. • Development Regulations (zoning) Goal LU2: A land use pattern and mix of uses that contribute to the financial health and stability of the community. LU2.1 San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Area. Promote retail, office, and mixed uses along within the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Area to provide more tax revenues to the city. • Developm ent Regulation s (zoning) • Redevelop ment Program • Economic Developm ent Strategy • Design Guidelines San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Attachment 2 Exhibit A LU2.5 Maximum FARS. Allow a maximum floor-area-ratio of 2.0 in all commercial areas except the neighborhood commercial centers where the maximum is 1.0 and the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan area where FARs are not defined and except as otherwise provided in this Plan. • Development Regulations (zoning) • San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Goal LU3: A development pattern that enhances a strong sense of community. LU3.1 Commercial/Residential Interaction. Encourage easy access and a strong sense of place to local businesses as focal points for neighborhood social interaction. • • Development Regulations (zoning) • Design Guidelines • Development Review LU3.2 Midtown Center. Promote the organization of properties along San Pablo Avenue from south of Moeser Lane to north of Manila Avenue into a “Midtown Center” which may include a civic center. Attract additional mixed-use residential development with enhanced pedestrian and bicycle connectivity within the civic and community-oriented Midtown zone of the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan area. • Development Regulations (zoning) • Specific Plans • Capital Improvements Program • Redevelopment Program • Economic Development Strategy • San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Goal LU4: A safe, attractive, and interesting community LU4.3 Street Frontages. Encourage attractive and accessible street frontages that contribute to the retail vitality of all commercial or mixed-use centers. • Development Regulations (zoning) • Design Guidelines • Development Review • San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Attachment 2 Exhibit A Goal LU5: A land use pattern and types of development that support alternatives for the movement of people, goods, and ideas. LU5.1 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.  Development Regulations (zoning)  Specific Plan  Redevelopment Program  San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan LU5.2 Mixed-Use Centers. Encourage mixed-use centers along San Pablo Avenue – including development along Fairmount Avenue, Stockton Avenue and Moeser Lane, between San Pablo Avenue and the Ohlone Greenway – that provide the opportunity for people to walk among businesses, employment, and residences.  Development Regulations (zoning)  Specific Plan  Redevelopment Program  Economic Development Strategy  San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan LU5.3 Mixed-Use Projects. Encourage mixed uses, especially offices or housing over ground-floor retail uses, where commercial uses are allowed.  Development Regulations (zoning)  Design Guidelines  San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan LU5.5 Pedestrians, Bicycles, and Access. Ensure that business areas have adequate and attractive pedestrian and bicycle facilities and accessibility for persons with disabilities, and that easy connections to transit are available wherever possible. • Development Regulations (zoning) • Development Review • Capital Improvements Program ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Attachment 2 Exhibit A • Design Guidelines • San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan LU5.6 Development Along the Ohlone Greenway. New or substantially altered development abutting the Ohlone Greenway will be evaluated with respect to how the development enhances the aesthetics and ambiance of this important linear recreational and transportation facility, and how the development contributes to the security of users of the Greenway. The City will expect frontage along the Greenway to be treated as if it were public street frontage, with commensurate attention to design quality and access. The San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan designates the Ohlone Greenway as a Street Type within its Regulating Plan. Projects within the Plan Area abutting the Greenway are subject the development standards of this Street Type. • Development Regulations (zoning) • Development Review • Design Guidelines • San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Goal LU6: Development patterns that promote energy efficiency, conservation of natural resources, and use of renewable rather than nonrenewable resources. LU6.2 Circulation Alternatives. To the extent possible, encourage alternatives to the use of private automobiles. Encourage a full range of transportation options – driving, transit, walking and biking – without allowing any one to preclude the others. On San Pablo Avenue, in many constrained right-of-ways, it is not possible to provide optimum facilities for all user groups and in the event that trade-offs are necessary, transit users and pedestrians are the highest priority.  Development Regulations (zoning)  Specific Plans  Redevelopment Program  San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Page 4-29 Amend text to: The San Pablo Avenue Commercial Corridor Specific Plan Area San Pablo Avenue is a continuous suburban, strip commercial street. Typical of an older state highway, the strip has a variety of low scale commercial malls, surface parking, and older one and two story commercial and residential buildings in a variety of sizes, characters, ages, and styles. These conditions will require a cooperative effort with the City of Richmond to create an attractive and unified visual character. The streetscape changes throughout its length, with a mix of landscaped median designs and sidewalk character. The west side of San Pablo Avenue from approximately Bay View Avenue on the north to ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Attachment 2 Exhibit A San Jose Avenue on the south is outside the City limits. Sidewalks are in various states of disrepair. There are few benches or other pedestrian amenities, and maintenance is generally lacking. Landmarks, distinctive architecture, crosswalks, and unique commercial and public activity areas are lacking. San Pablo Avenue could benefit from a conscious strategy to create distinct nodes of higher density and activity with public space and pedestrian amenities. With the mixed use Del Norte Place near one end of San Pablo Avenue and opportunities for El Cerrito Plaza redesign at the other end, El Cerrito’s segment of the avenue has the unique potential for two lively and definable places adjacent to BART. The San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Area centers on the portion of San Pablo Avenue, State Route 123, that extends for approximately two and one-half miles from El Cerrito Plaza and the border with the City of Albany in the south and continuing to Baxter Creek Gateway Park in the north. The Avenue carries both heavy regional through-traffic and local traffic accessing the Avenue’s mix of commercial services, civic uses and BART stations. At the southern end of the Plan Area, the boundary extends east to include the El Cerrito Plaza BART station and west along Central Avenue to the interstate 80. While most of the parcels within the Plan Area are within the City of El Cerrito, some on the west side of San Pablo Avenue and in the northern part of the Plan Area are within the City of Richmond. The Specific Plan supports the community vision to create a vibrant, walkable, sustainable and transit-oriented corridor that respects surrounding neighborhoods by identifying and providing design strategies for three unique destinations within the Specific Plan Area: Downtown, Midtown, and Uptown. A variety of transportation options, including mass transit, automobiles, walking and biking, contribute to the character of the San Pablo Avenue corridor. Besides being a high-traffic vehicular thoroughfare, the Plan Area is well-served by transit including two BART stations, numerous AC Transit bus lines and other regional bus connections. The del Norte BART station serves as a major bus transit hub with multiple regional and local bus lines converging at the station. The majority of the Plan Area is bordered to the east by the Ohlone Greenway, which serves as a major north-south bicycle and pedestrian circulation spine with dedicated pockets of open space that connects El Cerrito with the neighboring cities of Albany and Richmond. Several recent public and private investments have enhanced the Avenue including the Ohlone Greenway improvements, San Pablo Avenue streetscape improvements, bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure projects, a new City Hall, the restored Cerrito Theater, and new residential and commercial developments. Page 4-30 Amend text to: Uptown (Del Norte Area) The northern area, Del Norte, is more regional serving in character, providing a “big box” shopping destination around and north of the corner of Cutting and San Pablo Avenue. The Del Norte area is an area in transition. Some of the older retail stores are now vacant. Due to the direct freeway access, new “big box” retail uses are replacing the older strip commercial uses along this portion of San Pablo Avenue. The proximity to the Del Norte BART station, however, provides a unique opportunity for higher intensity, transit oriented development. ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Attachment 2 Exhibit A Uptown is a mixed-use commercial area that serves as the northern gateway to the City. Positioned within a ½ of the del Norte BART Station, a regional multi-modal center, this district is characterized by larger lots and building footprints. The area has potential to be humanized to be a stronger neighborhood that is more walkable and bikeable, while still serving as a transportation hub. Significant opportunities exist to: improve pedestrian and bicycle connectivity and close circulation gaps on large blocks; encourage a sense-of-place through active ground floor commercial uses and public open spaces; and, construct higher density development on large underutilized lots in proximity to the BART station. Downtown (El Cerrito Plaza) Some uses and stores in the El Cerrito Plaza are currently being remodeled. The current visual and design problems are evident: a sea of surface parking, blank building facades far from the street and sidewalk, no landscaping or pedestrian amenities, inhospitable buildings, single use with limited marketability, poor entries and signage, and an unattractive retaining wall. The importance of this site lies not only in its location at the door to El Cerrito, the commercial district, and BART, but also in its proximity to Cerrito Creek and its future development potential. Downtown is an entertainment/theater and shopping district that serves as the southern gateway to the City. Positioned within a ½ mile of the El Cerrito Plaza BART Station, this district is characterized by constrained lots, the El Cerrito Plaza shopping center and adjoining residential. New development potential primarily includes smaller infill projects with “fine grain” character, as well as the El Cerrito Plaza BART surface parking lot or eventual redevelopment of the El Cerrito Plaza shopping center. Significant opportunities exist to: create an identifiable green southern gateway to the City where Cerrito Creek meets San Pablo Avenue; encourage a sense-of-place through active ground floor commercial uses and public open spaces; connect destinations to the Bay Trail through pedestrian and bicycle improvements; construct higher-intensity mixed-use developments in proximity to the BART station; and, improve connectivity to San Pablo Avenue and through the El Cerrito Plaza shopping center. Midtown (City Center) Some portions of San Pablo Avenue offer opportunities to create additional centers both large and small. The civic uses at San Pablo Avenue and Manila provide an opportunity to create a major Midtown City Center. Presently this is a single use destination. Adding mixed use retail activity, residential and office uses, and a public place for meeting and gatherings would enhance the site considerably. Midtown is a civic and community-oriented zone with two neighborhood-scale commercial nodes at Stockton and Moeser. Characterized by longer blocks next to BART tracks, the district has both recent and planned mixed-use and residential investment. The area has strong potential to attract additional mixed-use residential development with enhanced pedestrian and bicycle connectivity. Significant opportunities exist to: provide midblock connections to improve pedestrian and bicycle connectivity on large blocks; enhance the Moeser and Stockton neighborhood commercial nodes to promote economic activity; construct a mix of mid-density residential and mixed-use developments along the corridor; and, create a continuous cycle track to improve bicycle safety, access and connectivity. Page 4-35 ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Attachment 2 Exhibit A Amend text to: Three Major Activity Centers The San Pablo Avenue corridor provides virtually all the development opportunities for new office work places and shopping. Recent development trends reflect that retail development forms are shifting from suburban strip commercial and community malls to more pedestrian friendly, transit oriented villages. El Cerrito’s unique location provides an opportunity to take advantage of these changing marketing trends. El Cerrito has the potential to create three major centersDowntown (the El Cerrito Plaza Area), Uptown (the Del Norte Area), and a Midtown Area. These three major activity centers are envisioned as pedestrian friendly, mixed-use villages, with ground floor retail uses and upper floors of office and residential uses. Both El Cerrito Plaza and Del Norte Center take advantage of their regional location next to the BART stations. These three major centers are connected along San Pablo Avenue, BART and the Ohlone Greenway with additional office, retail, and housing uses in between. Each center has its own unique character and function. The Plaza provides an opportunity for larger, high end retail providing goods and services both locally and more regionally smaller, “fine grain” retail infill projects. Del Norte provides an opportunity for a new regional work place with new office space for smaller, entrepreneurial enterprises, live work, studios, R&D office space, and for traditional insurance and banking services large-scale commercial opportunities provided by proximity to the freeway and office, retail and residential mixed-use developments. The Midtown Center provides an opportunity to cluster development around new civic functions and neighborhood-serving commercial districts. Page 4-37 to Page-47 Amend text to Community Development Goals and Policies: Goal CD1: A city organized and designed with an overall attractive, positive image and “sense of place.” CD1.2 Design Concept. Plan and construct development within development activity centers and neighborhood commercial centers according to an overall design concept for each center.  Specific Plans  Design Guidelines  Grant Funds  San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan 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.  Development Review  Design Guidelines  Development Incentives  Development Regulations (zoning)  San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan CD1.6 Entrances to the City. Improve the major entrances into the city with landmark entry features, signs, and gateways to enhance the sense of community and improve the City’s image. • City Entry Design Program • San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Attachment 2 Exhibit A CD1.7 Views and Vistas. Preserve and enhance major views and vistas along major streets and open spaces, providing areas to stroll and benches to rest and enjoy views. • Development Regulations (zoning) • Beautification Program • San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan 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. • Design Guidelines • Development Review • Specific Plans • San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Goal CD2: A city with attractive, safe, and functional streets, parking areas, and pedestrian walkways. CD2.1 Street Frontages. Encourage street frontages that are safe, by allowing for surveillance of the street by people inside buildings and elsewhere, and are interesting for pedestrians. Require buildings in development centers and neighborhood commercial centers along San Pablo Avenue in the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan area to be directly abutting sidewalks, with window openings, entries and high levels of transparency along the pedestrian frontage.  Specific Plans  Design Guidelines  Development Review  Development Regulations (zoning)  Grant Funds  San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan CD2.2 San Pablo Avenue. Develop a design concept for San Pablo Avenue that includes street landscaping and improvements, and design guidelines that Implement the improvements and context-sensitive regulations identified in the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan to create an overall coordinated image and character of the street from north to south. Establish physical design standards for development in cooperation with Caltrans and, where required, subject to acceptance by Caltrans. • Design Guidelines • Parking Districts • Specific Plans • San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan CD2.4 Multi-Modal Transportation Network. Ensure that streets, paths, and bikeways contribute to the system of a fully connected transportation network to all major destinations in the City. The design of these streets and pathways should encourage pedestrian and bicycle uses by being spatially defined by buildings, trees, lighting, and street furniture. Pedestrian and bicycle pathways and auto routes should be compatible. • Design Guidelines • Street Tree Program • Beautification Program • San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan CD2.6 Parking Layout. Encourage the development of • Design Guidelines ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Attachment 2 Exhibit A common parking areas and common access for adjoining lots. • Parking Districts • Specific Plans • Development Regulations (zoning) • San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan CD2.7 Accessible Design. Site and building design must meet basic accessibility needs of the community and not be exclusively oriented to those who arrive by car. • Design Guidelines • Development Review • Specific Plans • San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan CD2.8 City Sidewalk and Pedestrian Walkways. City streets and pedestrian walkways should be designed to be safe, accessible, convenient, comfortable, and functionally adequate at all times, including the design of pedestrian crossings, intersection design, sidewalk widths, street tree planting, street furniture, and signal timing. • Streetscape Improvement Program • Street Tree Program • Beautification Program • Specific Plans • Design Guidelines • San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Goal CD3: A city with attractive landscaping of public and private properties, open space, and public gathering spaces. CD3.2 Usable Open Spaces. Require the provision of usable open space in the form of ground-floor patios, upper- floor decks, and balconies, as well as common recreational facilities and amenities. • Development Regulations • Design Guidelines • Development Review • San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan CD3.3 Site Landscaping. Improve the appearance of the community by requiring aesthetically designed screening and landscaping on public and private sites. Ensure that public landscaping includes entry areas, street medians, parks, and schools. Require landscaping for all private sites, yard spaces, parking lots, plazas, courtyards, and recreational areas. • Development Regulations (zoning) • Design Guidelines • Development Review • Capital Improvements Program • San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan CD3.8 Public Spaces. Create specialized outdoor gathering places in the three main activity centers along San Pablo Avenue: Del Norte, Midtown, and El Cerrito Plaza. Encourage the design of these public spaces to accommodate activities that encourage the presence of • Specific Plans • Design Guidelines • Development Review • Development ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Attachment 2 Exhibit A people at all hours of the day and evenings. Require projects within the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan area to provide on-site public and private open space to: incentivize development of multifunctional new public open space; encourage urban open spaces; allow private open space for residential buildings; customize the design of open space to site context; and, increase safety by providing more “eyes on the street”. Incentives • Redevelopment Program • San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan CD3.9 Ohlone Greenway. Enhance the usability and aesthetic appeal of the Ohlone Greenway by integrating it into the fabric of the City. Design buildings with entries, yards, patios, and windows to open onto and face the Ohlone Greenway. Avoid blank walls, backs of buildings, and large parking lots adjacent to the greenway. • Design Guidelines • Development Review • San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan CD3.11 Streetscape Design. Streetscape design (street trees, lighting, and pedestrian furniture) should be used to lend character and continuity with commercial districts and residential neighborhoods. • Streetscape Improvement Program • Specific plans • City Entry Design Program • Sign Ordinance • San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Goal CD4: Well designed buildings that are compatible with their surroundings. CD4.1 Compatibility in Building Scale. Avoid big differences in building scale and character between developments on adjoining lots.  Design Guidelines  Development Review  San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan 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.  Design Guidelines  Development Review  San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Goal CD5: A design process that achieves design objectives while being efficient and allowing for flexibility. CD5.3 Design Guidelines and Regulations. Make  Design Guidelines ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Attachment 2 Exhibit A development and design regulations more understandable with use of illustrations, photos, drawings, diagrams, or other graphic and visually oriented regulations, such as a “form code.”  Development Regulations (zoning)  San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Goal CD6: An urban form that sustains a vital commercial community to meet the diverse needs of the local and regional population. CD6 Affordable Commerce. El Cerrito’s urban form should allow site opportunities for commerce by local entrepreneurs – small business spaces in close proximity to other businesses with easy visibility from the street and close to abundant pedestrian traffic. • Development Regulations (zoning) • Design Guidelines • Specific Plans • San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Page 4-54 Add text to Implementation Strategy 24. Specific Plans: Certain areas of the city need to be planned comprehensively, but in more detail than can be done in a general plan. A specific plan can integrate land use, design, transportation, utilities and other issues into an action strategy. Areas to be considered for a specific plan include the Midtown area along San Pablo Avenue, extending from south of Moeser to north of Manila Avenue, and the Del Norte BART station area. A specific plan for the El Cerrito Plaza area, including the BART station and the area along San Pablo Avenue between Fairmount and Central avenues, should be prepared to provide overall direction during the next 20 years. San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan: The purpose of the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan, including a Form- Based Code, Complete Streets Plan and Infrastructure Analysis, is to articulate a vision for the future of San Pablo Avenue from the southern entrance to the northern entrance of the City, east to the El Cerrito Plaza BART Station and west along Central Avenue to Interstate 80. The Plan identifies public improvements and context-sensitive regulations to create a multimodal corridor that provides a multitude of opportunities for living, working and community life. ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Attachment 2 Exhibit A 2013 GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT UPDATE Page 4-51 Amend text to: The Growth Management Element establishes a comprehensive, long-range program that matches demand for public facilities generated by new development with policies and standards for traffic level of service (LOS) and performance criteria for fire, police, parks, sanitary facilities, water supplies, and flood control; in the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan area, this includes a multi-modal level of service (MMLOS). The Growth Management Element is concerned with maintaining defined urban service levels; it is not intended to limit growth or to direct growth into certain areas of the community on a priority basis. Most importantly, the Element’s policies ensure that new development impacts that threaten to degrade established traffic performance or public service thresholds are mitigated through project modification, capital improvement programming, or contributions to improvements. Page 4-55 Amend text to: San Pablo Avenue In El Cerrito, San Pablo Avenue is an urbanized thoroughfare between the southern City limits at Cerrito Creek near Carlson Boulevard to the northern city limits just south of McDonald Avenue with two lanes in each direction. San Pablo Avenue serves as the primary transit spine of the region, traveling through all of the West County cities where in many cases it functions as “Main Street”, and is the alternative primary reliever route to the I-80, providing a variety of transportation options during periods of heavy freeway congestion. From its southern extent to Cutting Boulevard, the Avenue is part of State Route (SR) 123 and is operated and maintained by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). At most intersections there are left turns operating with left-turn signal phasing. The speed limit is 30 MPH. Average daily traffic volumes on San Pablo Avenue are greatest at its southerly extreme in the County. Near Cutting Boulevard, the highest average daily volume is 29,900 vehicles. During the AM peak period, the highest volumes occur near Potrero Avenue at 2,275 vehicles per hour. The highest PM peak hour period volumes occur near Barrett Avenue in Richmond, and frequently cause traffic backup into El Cerrito. Page 4-56 Amend text to: Regional Action Plans Local jurisdictions participated in the development of programs to control regional traffic impacts on these routes through a series of Action Plans approved by one of the Regional Transportation Planning Committees created under Measure C. El Cerrito has been working closely with the WCCTAC (West Contra Costa County Traffic Advisory Committee) to work on an update of the 2000 and 2009 action plans for the west county area. Once approved, the updated Action Plan will be combined by CCTA with other regionally recommended Action Plans to create a comprehensive transportation plan. The City recognizes that the success of attaining Action Plan objectives depends upon participation of other jurisdictions in both planning and funding of necessary improvements. to ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Attachment 2 Exhibit A update to the West County Action Plan, which has been transmitted to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority for incorporation into the 2014 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan. It is anticipated that the updated West County Action Plan will be formally adopted by WCCTAC at the end of 2014. Both the current (adopted in 2009) Action Plan and the updated Action Plan call for cooperation between partner agencies to improve traffic congestion on San Pablo Avenue, and emphasize the importance of better serving all corridor users by enhancing transit services, including the Rapid Bus, and improving bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Both the current and the updated Action Plans specify that the multi-modal transportation service objective (MTSO) for San Pablo Avenue is to maintain LOS E or better at all signalized intersections. In addition, the updated Action Plan specifies that this LOS MTSO will not be applied within ½-mile of a BART station, and instead the performance measures in the relevant specific plan(s) for the area will be followed. Additional objectives from the updated Action Plan include: • Enhance local and regional transit service, particularly in terms of connections to BART. • Increase the use of active transportation modes. • Implement Complete Streets enhancements identified in local plans. • Actively manage growth to support regional land use and transportation goals. Basic Routes All roads not indicated on the map of Routes of Regional Significance are Basic Routes. The Growth Management Element is required to assess the operating capacity of signalized intersections on Basic Routes, estimate future service impacts resulting from significant, foreseeable increases in home building and job formation, according to the city’s General Plan land use and housing policies. Although Measure J no longer requires the adoption of Level of Service standards for Basic Routes (non‐regional routes), the City is maintaining LOS standards for Basic Routes in this chapter until alternative performance measures for correlating the circulation element with the land use element of the General Plan are developed. Pages 4-61 – 4-70 Amend text to Growth Management Goals and Policies Goal GM2: Compliance with applicable level of service standards. GM2.1 Application of Standards. Strive to maintain the minimum V/C performance standard for each signalized intersection on Basic Routes as described in Table 4-4. Level of Service Standards are considered to be met if measurement of actual conditions at the intersection indicates that operations are equal to or better than the specified minimum performance standard, or if El Cerrito’s Capital Improvement Program includes projects which, when constructed, will result in performance better than or equal to the specified minimum standard. Refer to Transportation and Circulation Element for other standards related to the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan area. • Capital Improvements Program • Development Regulations (zoning) ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Attachment 2 Exhibit A GM2.2 Achieving Level of Service Standards. Consider amendments to the General Plan Land Use Element or Map, Zoning Ordinance, or other relevant plans and policies to alter land use intensity or vehicle trip activity so that any Basic Route signalized intersection which does not meet the minimum service level standard in Policy GM2.2 can be brought into compliance with said standard. Alternately, consider amendments to the Capital Improvement Program or other relevant programs and policies which will improve the capacity or efficiency of intersections not meeting the service standards through physical construction and improvements. Refer to Transportation and Circulation Element for other standards related to the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan area. • Development Regulations (zoning) • Capital Improvements Program • San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan. Goal GM6: Support land use patterns that make more efficient use of the transportation system GM6.2 Mixed-Use Centers. Encourage mixed-use centers along San Pablo Avenue – including development along Fairmount Avenue, Stockton Avenue and Moeser Lane, between San Pablo Avenue and the Ohlone Greenway – that provide the opportunity for people to walk among businesses, employment, and residences. (LU5.2) • Development Regulations (zoning) • San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan GM6.3 Pedestrians, Bicycles, and Access. Ensure that business areas have adequate and attractive pedestrian and bicycle facilities and accessibility for persons with disabilities, and that easy connections to transit are available wherever possible. (LU5.5) • Capital Improvements Program • San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan GM6.4 Circulation Alternatives. To the extent possible, encourage alternatives to the use of private automobiles. Encourage a full range of transportation options – driving, transit, walking and biking – without allowing any one to preclude the others. On San Pablo Avenue, in many constrained right-of-ways, it is not possible to provide optimum facilities for all user groups and in the event that trade-offs are necessary, transit users and pedestrians are the highest priority. (LU6.2) • Transportation Demand Management • San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Attachment 2 Exhibit A GM6.5 Multi-Modal Transportation Network. Ensure that streets, paths, and bikeways contribute to the system of a fully connected transportation network to all major destinations in the City. The design of these streets and pathways should encourage pedestrian and bicycle uses by being spatially defined by buildings, trees, lighting, and street furniture. Pedestrian and bicycle pathways and auto routes should be compatible. (CD2.4) • Capital Improvements Program • San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan GM6.6 Balanced Transportation System. Create and maintain a balanced transportation system with choice of transit, bicycle, pedestrian, and private automobile modes, including on regionally significant arterials such as San Pablo Avenue. In many constrained right-of-ways, it is not possible to provide optimum facilities for all user groups and in the event that trade-offs are necessary, transit and pedestrians are the highest priority for San Pablo Avenue. (T1.1) • Capital Improvements Program • San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan GM6.7 Transit System. Encourage transit providers to improve and increase existing transit routes, frequency, and level of service. Encourage a public transit system that provides convenient transfers between transit services and other modes of travel. On San Pablo Avenue, provide transit shelters with benches, lighting, bike racks and crosswalks (on San Pablo Avenue) such that transit amenities represent a ‘High’ Built Environment Factors (BEF) throughout the corridor. Facilitate transit flow along San Pablo Avenue such that transit corridor travel time is reduced by 5 percent relative to current conditions. Where possible, provide far- side transit stops at signalized intersections with bus bulbs such that transit vehicles stop in-lane, thereby reducing transit delay associated with re-entry into traffic. (T1.2) • Capital Improvements Program • Intergovernmental Coordination • San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan GM6.8 Bicycle Circulation. Create a complete, interconnected bicycle circulation system. Provide a bicycle system that serves commuter as well as recreational travel. Improve bicycle routes and access to and between major destinations. On San Pablo Avenue, improve local bicycle access, including access on San Pablo Avenue and adjacent roadways. Provide a ‘Medium’ to ‘High’ BEF for bicyclists on San Pablo Avenue. Through transit and pedestrian MMLOS is the main priority, bicycle facilities should not be allow to remain ‘Low’ if measures to improve them to ‘Medium’ are available. Emphasize the placemaking qualities of bikeways, particularly separated bikeways/cycletracks. • Capital Improvements Program • San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Attachment 2 Exhibit A Though no delay-based bicycle LOS metric is identified, seek to reduce bicycle delay at signalized intersections and when considering changes to intersections, consider bicycle delay. (T1.3) GM6.9 Pedestrian Circulation. Provide a safe, convenient, continuous and interconnected pedestrian circulation system throughout the City. Ensure safe pedestrian access to local schools. Improve crossing opportunities, enhance crosswalks, and improve sidewalks to maintain a consistent ‘High’ Pedestrian BEF on San Pablo Avenue. Emphasize the placemaking qualities of the streetscape, including sidewalk and curb extensions. Though no delay-based pedestrian LOS metric is identified, seek to reduce pedestrian delay at signalized intersections and when considering changes to intersections, consider pedestrian delay. (T1.4) • Capital Improvements Program • San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Page 4-72 Amend text of Implementation Measure 10. Development Review to: 10. Development Review The development review process includes discretionary review by the Planning Commission and the Design Review Board, based on consideration of General Plan objectives and policies, and criteria established by the zoning and subdivision ordinances and other city regulations and adopted guidelines. Most discretionary actions are subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The development review process also includes administrative review of projects to verify compliance with Planning Commission and Design Review Board requirements, as well as standards set by the City through adoption of building and fire codes, engineering standards, and other regulations and ordinances. Development review should be used to assess the impact of new development on the demand for transportation and public facility improvements and to implement mitigation measures and other mechanisms to help finance needed improvements. Use the multi-modal level of service calculation sheets for developers to determine the existing and proposed level of service for pedestrians, transit users, and bicyclists in the vicinity of the development parcel. Page 4-75 Amend text of Implementation Measure 24. Specific Plans to: 24. Specific Plans Certain areas of the city need to be planned comprehensively, but in more detail than can be done in a general plan. A specific plan can integrate land use, design, transportation, utilities and other issues into an action strategy. ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Attachment 2 Exhibit A The Draft San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan is currently being developed to address planning needs in the San Pablo Avenue corridor. As conditions change and as development proposals come forward, additional areas of the City may also need more detailed planning efforts. San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan: The purpose of the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan, including a Form-Based Code, Complete Streets Plan and Infrastructure Analysis, is to articulate a vision for the future of San Pablo Avenue from the southern entrance to the northern entrance of the City, east to the El Cerrito Plaza BART Station and west along Central Avenue to Interstate 80. The Plan identifies public improvements and context-sensitive regulations to create a multimodal corridor that provides a multitude of opportunities for living, working and community life. Page 4-76 Amend text of Implementation Measure 28. Travel Demand Management (TDM) to: 28. Travel Demand Management (TDM) Support and promote TDM measures to reduce the percentage of person trips made by automobile and to reduce the annual vehicle miles of travel. Reduce the percentage of trips made by automobile and provide the opportunity and facilities to divert trips from automobiles to other modes. Encourage small businesses in areas of employment concentration to form cooperatives that can collectively provide effective TDM options to employees. Require new developments along San Pablo Avenue to provide basic TDM measures for residents and businesses as appropriate; additional TDM measures may be required where adjustments to the parking requirements are proposed to incentivize alternative modes of travel. ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Attachment 2 Exhibit A CHAPTER 5: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Page 5-4 Amend text to: Traffic Multimodal Transportation Operations Figure 7 identifies existing and projected (under General Plan build-out conditions) daily traffic volumes on area streets and highways. The operation of transportation facilities (freeways, roadways, intersections) is classified in six “level-of-service” categories. Level of service (LOS) is defined in terms of a letter grade ranging from A to F. LOS A is the best level of operation, representing free flow conditions, and LOS F is the worst level of operation, representing excessive delays, long vehicle queues, and generally intolerable conditions. The City of El Cerrito policy calls for achievement of LOS D or better conditions except for San Pablo Avenue as indicated below. The City of El Cerrito has traditionally maintained a standard of LOS D for signalized intersections along San Pablo Avenue. However, the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan includes Multimodal Level of Service (MMLOS) standards to evaluate the impacts of development projects and roadway improvement projects on all modes of transportation including pedestrians, bicyclists and transit users. The MMLOS methodology instead provides a Built Environment Factors (BEF) Assessment and Person Delay Calculations. This methodology takes a qualitative checklist approach to measuring the quality of service provided to users of the pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities. This methodology measures the presence and, in some cases, quality of specific features of the built environment that benefit non-auto modes. Depending on mode, such features might include presence of a separated bikeway to provide comfortable, dedicated bicycle space; curb extensions to reduce pedestrian crossing distances; and bus bulbs to reduce delay for buses by allowing them to stop in the travel lane. As indicated above, traditional automobile LOS is assigned letter grades of A through F. For pedestrians, bicyclists and transit, the BEF metric consolidates those six letter grades into three categories based on a 0 to 10 point scale that corresponds to three ratings: either ‘High’ (8-10 points), ‘Medium’ (6-7 points), or ‘Low’ (5 or fewer points). A designation of ‘No Facilities’ applies where there are no facilities available, which allows the City to distinguish between this condition and a ‘Low’ condition, where some facilities may be provided even if they are not sufficient to reach a Medium or High rating. Built environment factors are not assessed for automobiles under the assumption that the existing roadway meets the minimum design standards for auto traffic. While consideration for all modes is important, transit and pedestrian modes are identified as the priority modes for San Pablo Avenue. This is due to the importance of the corridor as a transit route serving the City’s downtown and two BART stations, and its role as the City’s main commercial and mixed use corridor, where walking between residential, retail, and office uses as well as walking trips to BART should be promoted. Thus, a High rating is desired for these modes, and a Medium to High rating is the goal for the bicycle mode. Although transit and pedestrian MMLOS is the main priority, bicycle facilities should not be allowed to remain ‘Low’ if measures to improve them to ‘Medium’ are available. This is because the corridor functions as El Cerrito’s main street, with shopping and employment destinations all along the corridor; furthermore, as residential development occurs as ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Attachment 2 Exhibit A part of the Specific Plan, more bicycle trips will originate on the corridor and many of these will take place entirely on San Pablo Avenue. The Person Delay Calculation uses person-delay for autos (using an estimated auto occupancy), pedestrians (using pedestrian counts and the signal timing plan) and bicycles (based on bicycle counts and the signal timing plan). For transit riders, the transit person delay is not reported on an intersection-specific basis, but as a corridor-long travel time, for the northbound and southbound directions. This allows a more meaningful measure of the change in transit delay. As with the BEF metric, the Specific Plan prioritizes minimizing person delay for bus riders, pedestrians and bicyclists over drivers, with bus riders and pedestrians being the highest priority. Following are the person- delay standards: • Autos: LOS E / <80 seconds of delay, when achievable and in consideration of the goals and priorities for other modes • Pedestrian and Bicyclists: Person-delay calculated for information only, to assess impacts of vehicle capacity improvements on non-motorized delay, and to support the decision making process when weighing improvements benefitting different modes. • Transit: Reduce corridor travel time by 5 percent relative to the No Project case Most intersections in El Cerrito currently operate at LOS C or better. All City operated intersections (not along San Pablo Avenue) operate at LOS A. Traffic operation in the Del Norte area, other portions of San Pablo Avenue, and the Central Avenue Interchange can be as bad as LOS E or F conditions when an incident on Interstate 80 results in a higher-than-normal diversion of regional traffic and during weekend peak periods. As of 1999, traffic on Central Avenue can be quite backed up. It is not known, without further study, whether this is a temporary or ongoing problem. The San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan presents the current Multimodal Level of Service (MMLOS) conditions along San Pablo Avenue. Page 5-20 Amend text of Transportation and Circulation Goals and Policies to: Goal T1: A transportation system that allows safe and efficient travel by a variety of modes and promotes the use of alternatives to the single-occupant vehicle. T1.1 Balanced Transportation System. Create and maintain a balanced transportation system with choice of transit, bicycle, pedestrian, and private automobile modes, including on regionally significant arterials such as San Pablo Avenue. In many constrained right-of-ways, it is not possible to provide optimum facilities for all user groups and in the event that trade-offs are necessary, transit and pedestrians are the highest priority for San Pablo Avenue. • Transportation System Performance Measures • Travel Demand Management • Bicycle Master Plan • Pedestrian Circulation Plan • Development Review • Traffic Monitoring • San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Attachment 2 Exhibit A T1.2 Transit System. Encourage transit providers to improve and increase existing transit routes, frequency, and level of service. Encourage a public transit system that provides convenient transfers between transit services and other modes of travel. On San Pablo Avenue, provide transit shelters with benches, lighting, bike racks and crosswalks (on San Pablo Avenue) such that transit amenities represent a ’High’ BEF throughout the corridor. Facilitate transit flow along San Pablo Avenue such that transit corridor travel time is reduced by 5 percent relative to conditions without a development or transportation project Where possible, provide far-side transit stops at signalized intersections with bus bulbs such that transit vehicles stop in-lane, thereby reducing transit delay associated with re-entry into traffic. • Intergovernmental Coordination • Transit First Policy • San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan T1.3 Bicycle Circulation. Create a complete, interconnected bicycle circulation system. Provide a bicycle system that serves commuter as well as recreational travel. Improve bicycle routes and access to and between major destinations. On San Pablo Avenue, improve local bicycle access, including access on San Pablo Avenue and adjacent roadways. Provide a ‘Medium’ to ‘High’ BEF for bicyclists on San Pablo Avenue. Though transit and pedestrian MMLOS is the main priority, bicycle facilities should not be allowed to remain ‘Low’ if measures to improve them to ‘Medium’ are available. . Emphasize the placemaking qualities of bikeways, particularly separated bikeways/cycletracks. Though no delay-based bicycle LOS metric is identified, seek to reduce bicycle delay at signalized intersections and when considering changes to intersections, consider bicycle delay. • Bicycle Master Plan • Pavement Management Plan • San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan T1.4 Pedestrian Circulation. Provide a safe, convenient, continuous and interconnected pedestrian circulation system throughout the City. Ensure safe pedestrian access to local schools. Improve crossing opportunities, enhance crosswalks, and improve sidewalks to maintain a consistent ‘High’ Pedestrian BEF on San Pablo Avenue. Emphasize the placemaking qualities of the streetscape, including sidewalk and curb extensions. Though no delay-based pedestrian LOS metric is identified, seek to reduce pedestrian delay at signalized intersections and when • Pedestrian Circulation Plan • San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Attachment 2 Exhibit A considering changes to intersections, consider pedestrian delay. Goal T2: A land use pattern that encourages walking, bicycling, and public transit use. T2.1 Land Use Patterns. Recognize the link between land use and transportation. Promote land use and development patterns that encourage walking, bicycling, and transit use. Emphasize high-density and mixed land use patterns that promote transit and pedestrian travel. Where feasible, emphasize the following land use measures: 1. Promote conveniently located neighborhood complexes that provide housing and commercial services near employment centers and within transit corridors. 2. Promote land use patterns that maximize trip- linking opportunities by assembling uses that allow people to take care of a variety of daily needs. 3. Encourage pedestrian-oriented land use and urban design that can have a demonstrable effect on transportation choices. 4. Direct growth to occur along transit corridors. 5. Encourage retail, commercial, and office uses in ground floor space in combination with upper- floor housing along San Pablo Avenue. • Development Review • San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan T2.2 Project Design. Projects should be designed to include features that encourage walking, bicycling, and transit use. • Development Review • Transit First Policy • San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Goal T3: A transportation system that maintains and improves the livability of the City. T3.1 Improve Vehicle Circulation. Improve circulation in locations with high levels of congestion, but avoid major increases in street capacities unless necessary to remedy severe traffic congestion, and not at the expense of pedestrian circulation that would encourage speeds or degrade LOS or increase delay for transit, pedestrians or bicycles. For signalized intersections, maintain LOS D or better based on vehicle delay except for the San • Capital Improvement Program • Development Review • Traffic Monitoring • San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Attachment 2 Exhibit A Pablo Avenue Specific Plan area maintain LOS E. Also in the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan area for unsignalized intersections, maintain LOS E or better for all movements and where movements degrade to LOS F consider signalization. If signal warrants are not met, LOS F may be considered acceptable if it does not increase delays for pedestrians, bicyclists and transit users. Improve vehicle circulation in locations with high levels of congestion, but avoid increases in street capacities that would encourage speeds or degrade MMLOS for transit, pedestrians or bicycles. T3.6 Maintenance of San Pablo. Coordinate with Caltrans to ensure the timely maintenance of San Pablo Avenue. Review signal timing changes to assure they are consistent with the MMLOS metrics described above. • Intergovernmental Coordination Goal T4: A minimum amount of land used for parking and minimal parking intrusion in neighborhoods. T4.1 Parking Requirements. Develop parking requirements that are consistent with the goals for increased use of alternative transportation modes, and acknowledge shared parking opportunities. • Development Review • Parking Regulations • San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Page 5-27 Amend text to Implementation Measure 4. Development Review: 4. Development Review. Undertake development reviews to ensure compliance with applicable local, regional, state, and federal laws and adopted policies. Use the multi-modal level of service calculation sheets for developers to determine the existing and proposed level of service for pedestrians, transit users, and bicyclists in the vicinity of the development parcel in the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan area. Ensure that developers contribute funding for on-site and off-site improvements, where the MMLOS does not meet the City standards. Adopt an ordinance requiring developers to do the following: a. Construct transportation improvements along their property frontages when appropriate; and b. Fund traffic impact studies that identify on-site and off-site effects and mitigation measures. Page 5-28 Amend text to Implementation Measure 5. Intergovernmental Coordination to: ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Attachment 2 Exhibit A In addition to, and in support of, these regional key items, the following are City of El Cerrito interagency coordination positions: a. As opportunities present themselves, improve freeway access to El Cerrito, particularly around the Del Norte area and at the Central Avenue interchange. b. Oppose transportation projects that would diminish access to Interstate 80 from El Cerrito. c. Oppose regional capacity enhancements to San Pablo Avenue except when the improvements serve local traffic and do not compromise degrade bus, pedestrian and bicycle travel below the City MMLOS standards. d. Support physical enhancements to San Pablo Avenue to make it a transit, bicycle and pedestrian friendly multi-modal street. Encourage the City of Richmond and Caltrans to conduct a detailed operations analysis of the Central Avenue interchange and be an active participant in this study. This study should address an existing base year condition as well as a 20-year growth forecast including expected growth from development in El Cerrito, Richmond and Albany. It should also address weekday and Saturday conditions. It should be conducted using a detailed operations analysis such as and/or CORSIM. Page 5-29 Amend text to Implementation Measure 10. Pedestrian Circulation Plan to: Pedestrian Circulation Plan. Review existing pedestrian circulation within the City to identify constraints to walking, develop improvement plans at constrained locations (including pedestrian street crossings), and incorporate pedestrian enhancement projects into the City Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Encourage local access to BART stations by walking as an alternative to short-distance driving. Develop new sidewalk width standards consistent with the type and intensity of adjacent land use. Attention should be paid to the issue of tree damage to sidewalks and obstruction of sidewalks by signs. On San Pablo Avenue, maintain and create a ‘High’ Pedestrian MMLOS. Page 5-31 Amend text to Implementation Measure 15. Transportation System Performance Measures to: 15. Transportation System Performance Measures. Develop a level-of-service standard for traffic multi-modal operations that assesses service levels for all street users, including buses riders, pedestrians, and bicycles, as well as private automobile users. For areas outside of the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan area, consider modifying the City’s current LOS D standard to allow for higher levels of automobile congestion during peak hours in order to reduce the need for improvements that decrease opportunities for alternative transportation modes or reduce parking supply. Using a level of service standard worse than LOS D maybe considered acceptable where: e. Upstream or bottlenecks control the flow of traffic through an intersection such that capacity enhancements improvements) would have marginal benefit; f. Retaining a bottleneck would discourage regional or semi-regional traffic from using a facility; or g. Traffic capacity enhancements would degrade pedestrian, transit or bicycle conditions additional lanes increases pedestrian crossing distances). ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Attachment 2 Exhibit A In order to maintain consistency with the Congestion Management Plan, LOS E is the worst level of service standard that could be adopted for San Pablo Avenue. For the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan area, adopt multi-modal level of service (MMLOS) thresholds that use Person Delay and Built Environment Factors methodologies to determine level of service based on modal facility types, dimensions, and connectivity. Page 5-32 Amend text to Implementation Measure 17. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) to: 17. Travel Demand Management (TDM). Support and promote TDM measures to reduce the percentage of person trips made by automobile and to reduce the annual vehicle miles of travel. Reduce the percentage of trips made by automobile and provide the opportunity and facilities to divert trips from automobiles to other modes. Encourage small businesses in areas of employment concentration to form cooperatives that can collectively provide effective TDM options to employees. Require new developments along San Pablo Avenue to provide basic TDM measures for residents and businesses as appropriate; additional TDM measures may be required where adjustments to the parking requirements are proposed to incentivize alternative modes of travel. Page 5-32 Add Implementation Measure 18. San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan: 18. San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan. The purpose of the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan, including a Form-Based Code, Complete Streets Plan and Infrastructure Analysis, is to articulate a vision for the future of San Pablo Avenue from the southern entrance to the northern entrance of the City, east to the El Cerrito Plaza BART Station and west along Central Aveneue to Interstate 80. The Plan identifies improvements and context-sensitive regulations to create a multimodal corridor that provides a multitude of opportunities for living, working and community life. The Plan includes a multi-modal level of service (MMLOS) analysis to understand the impacts of proposed streetscape improvements on all users of the Avenue to better ensure that projects improve circulation within the Plan area. ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Attachment 2 Exhibit A 2007-2014 HOUSING ELEMENT Housing Element Page 44 Amend Table III-1 El Cerrito General Plan Residential Land Use Designations to include the following: Designation Description Permitted Density San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan The Specific Plan’s Form-Based Code regulates land use and development standards based on Transect Zone, Transit-Oriented High-Intensity Mixed Use (TOHIMU) and Transit-Oriented Mid-Intensity Mixed-Use (TOMIMU), designed to encourage vertical and horizontal mixed-use. The TOHIMU zone emphasizes commercial uses on the ground floor with upper residential uses to activate the pedestrian right-of-way and cluster services near transit nodes. The TOMIMU zone allows for “flex” spaces on the bottom floors to accommodate ground floor commercial where needed, but emphasizing mid-intensity residential uses to increase housing along the transportation corridor to encourage walking, biking and public transit use. TOHIMU: maximum of 65’ TOMIMU: maximum of 55’ Housing Element Page 44 Add Land Use Control b. San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan: b. San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan The San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan, adopted by the City in (date TDB), articulates a vision for the future of San Pablo Avenue, identifies improvements, and adopts context sensitive regulations that can be applied within the Specific Plan Area. The Plan’s key principles are to deepen a sense of place and community identity, attract private investment, strengthen partnerships, enhance the public realm, promote the everyday use of transit, walking, and biking and foster environmental sustainability. The Plan establishes a Form-Based Code that regulates land use and development standards based on Transit-Oriented High-Intensity Mixed Use (TOHIMU) and Transit-Oriented Mid-Intensity Mixed-Use (TOMIMU) Transect Zones Goals and strategies of the Plan include: • Maximize Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) potential along the corridor; • Allow ground floor residential development to provide flexibility and expand the Plan Area’s residential base; • Promote residential infill development through increased land use intensity close to existing transit infrastructure; and • Increase the supply, diversity and affordability of housing in proximity to existing or planned transportation investments. c. Zoning Code The Zoning Code is the primary tool for implementing the General Plan. It is designed to protect and promote public health, safety and welfare, as well as to promote quality ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Attachment 2 Exhibit A design and quality of life. The City of El Cerrito’s residential zoning designations control both the use and development standards of each residential parcel. Table III-2 summarizes permitted residential uses in residential districts. Residential zoning includes six main districts: RS, RD, RM, TOM, CC and CN and the TOHIMU and TOMIMU Transect Zones of the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan. The RS District is split into four separate subsets guiding the minimum size of each lot and other development standards such as minimum lot depth and width and setbacks—RS-5 would be a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet, RS-7.5 = 7,500 square feet, RS-10 = 10,000 square feet, and RS-20 = 20,000 square feet. Single-family units are permitted as a matter of right in all single-family residential districts. New single family uses are not allowed in the RM, TOM, CC, CN districts. Multiple family dwellings are permitted by right in the RM, TOM, CC, CN zones and San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Transect Zones. Multiple family dwellings are not permitted on the ground floor of the Theater Overlay Block of the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan. Housing Element Page 45 Add to Table III-2 Residential Uses Allowed in All Zones: Zone Single- Family Detached Multi-family Second Unit Duplex Transitional or Homeless Shelter San Pablo Avenue Transit- Oriented High-Intensity Mixed- Use (TOHIMU) P P San Pablo Avenue Transit- Oriented Mid-Intensity Mixed- Use (TOMIMU) P P Housing Element Page 45 Amend text to: Residential Development Standards The City regulates the type, location, density, and scale of development through the General Plan, San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. Provisions in the Zoning Ordinance specify minimum lot areas, setbacks, coverage, FAR, height limits, and parking (see Tables III-2, III-3, and III-4). The San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan specifies height, parking, setbacks, access and building length. El Cerrito regulations are comparable to those of similar cities. In addition to the base zoning districts described in the following tables, applicants can request rezoning to a customized Planned Development (PD) District that allows deviation from the normal regulations where a development project is consistent with the General Plan and meets other community objectives. El Cerrito’s zoning regulations are not restrictive and do not create a financial or physical constraint to residential development due to a wide range of densities permitted by the City and flexible parking requirements. ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Attachment 2 Exhibit A Housing Element Page 48 Amend Table III-4 Multi-Family Residential Development Standards in Commercial Zones CN CC TOM San Pablo Avenue TOHIMU San Pablo Avenue TOMIMU Minimum Lot Size (sq. ft.) 5,000 2,000 for commercial 5,000 5,000 Minimum Residential Density 35 units per acre within 300 feet of the BART stations Maximum Residential Density – lot area per unit (sq. ft.) (may be in addition to non-residential FAR) Base Density 20 units per acre 35 units per acre 35 units per acre NA NA Density for Mixed Use Development 35 units per acre NA NA Density with Incentives 25 units per acre 45 units per acre 45 units per acre; up to 70 du/ac for housing for elderly and disabled persons if services are provided. NA NA Density with State Affordable Housing Bonuses 27 units per acre 48 units per acre 48 units per acre; up to 70 du/ac for housing for elderly and disabled persons if services are provided. Affordable Housing Bonuses will be granted through height increases Affordable Housing Bonuses will be granted through height increases Maximum Building Height (ft.) 35 35, up to 50 with CUP 50, up to 65 with CUP in Del Norte & Plaza areas 35, up to 45 with CUP in Midtown node 65, up to 85 with State Affordable Housing Bonuses 55, up to 65 with State Affordable Housing Bonuses Minimum Building Height 2 stories, exceptions may be granted with a CUP 3 stories Residential (except constrained lots) 2 stories commercial (exceptions granted with CUP) 3 stories Residential (except constrained lots) 2 stories commercial (exceptions granted with CUP) ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Attachment 2 Exhibit A CN CC TOM San Pablo Avenue TOHIMU San Pablo Avenue TOMIMU Building Setback on Street Frontages 0 - 10 feet 0 - 10 feet, more with a CUP 0 - 10 feet 0 – 15, front setback is regulated by Street Type. See Section 2.04.01 Regulation by Street Type of the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan 0 – 15, front setback is regulated by Street Type. See Section 2.04.01 Regulation by Street Type of the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Minimum Yard Requirements (ft.) – None unless adjacent to a residential district Building Transition Zone Adjacent to Residential Districts For any portion of a structure adjacent to a residential district boundary), the minimum required setbacks of the residential district shall apply. To protect privacy and minimize sunlight blockage, structures shall not intercept a 45- degree daylight plane inclined inward starting from a height of 35 feet above existing grade at the setback line. Exceptions to the above requirements are permitted for a one-story parking or garage structure that does not exceed 10 feet in height in a side or rear yard that does not front on a street. To minimize impacts of shadows on adjacent residential districts, buildings shall not cast shadows onto adjacent existing residential uses on December 21st greater than 14’ deep at 1:30 pm on adjacent parcels to the east. To protect privacy and minimize additional sunlight blockage, structures shall not intercept a 45-degree daylight plane inclined inward starting from a height of 35 feet above existing grade at the setback line. To minimize impacts of shadows on adjacent residential districts, buildings shall not cast shadows onto adjacent existing residential uses on December 21st greater than 14’ deep at 1:30 pm on adjacent parcels to the east. To protect privacy and minimize additional sunlight blockage, structures shall not intercept a 45-degree daylight plane inclined inward starting from a height of 35 feet above existing grade at the setback line. Required Off Street Parking RM & CC Zones: 2 spaces per dwelling unit for each unit of two or more bedrooms. TOM Zones: 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit for each unit of two or more bedrooms. At least one space per unit must be located in a garage or carport. In the TOM district, required parking reduced by 25% within ¼ mile of a BART station. Residential: up to 1 auto space/unit Commercial Buildings: < 3,000 sf - no parking required > 3,000 sf – up to 1 auto space/1,000 sf Residential: up to 1.5 auto space/unit Commercial Buildings: < 3,000 sf - no parking required > 3,000 sf – up to 1 auto space/500 sf Housing Element Page 49 Amend Table III-5 Required Residential Parking ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Attachment 2 Exhibit A Use Classification Required Off-Street Parking Spaces Additional Regulations Single Family Dwelling 2 spaces per dwelling unit for each unit of two or more bedrooms. 1 space per studio or 1-bedroom unit. 19.06.030(N), Limitations on Parking and Garage Frontage. All required spaces must be located in a garage or carport. Second Unit 1 space for the Second Unit in addition to the spaces required for the primary dwelling unit. Section 19.20.190(D), Second Units. Two-Family Dwelling; Multiple Family Residential 1 space per unit for each studio or 1- bedroom unit. RD, RM & CC Zones: 2 spaces per dwelling unit for each unit of two or more bedrooms. TOM Zones: 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit for each unit of two or more bedrooms. 19.06.030(N), Limitations on Parking and Garage Frontage At least one space per unit must be located in a garage or carport. Transit-Oriented High-Intensity Mixed-Use (TOHIMU) up to 1 auto space/unit All projects include basic Transportation Demand Management (TDM). Projects proposing 0-0.5 auto spaces/residential unit may be required to perform a parking study and/or provide additional TDM measures. See San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan for Parking Standards Transit-Oriented Mid-Intensity Mixed-Use (TOMIMU) up to 1.5 auto space/unit All projects include basic Transportation Demand Management (TDM). Projects proposing 0-1 auto spaces/residential unit may be required to perform a parking study and/or provide additional TDM measures. See San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan for Parking Standards Group Housing 0.5 per Unit 19.06.030(N), Limitations on Parking and Garage Frontage. Senior Citizen Housing 0.5 per unit 19.06.030(N), Limitations on Parking and Garage Frontage. ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Attachment 2 Exhibit A Use Classification Required Off-Street Parking Spaces Additional Regulations Transitional Housing 0.5 per unit 19.06.030(N), Limitations on Parking and Garage Frontage. Housing Element Page 50 Add Density Bonus Subsection C. San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan: c. San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Projects within the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Area will be subject to the Administration regulations of the Specific Plan. The Plan Form-Based Code is designed to facilitate an increased intensity of residential development in proximity to transit. In the event that the development standards for the Transect Zones create an impediment to achieving multifamily residential development, the developer may submit an application for Site Plan and Design Review – Tier IV. The Tier IV Site Plan and Design Review process is meant to incentivize overarching community benefits, including affordable housing, as part of developments that would not otherwise be permitted under Specific Plan regulations but nevertheless comply with the intent of the Specific Plan. Approval Findings for Tier IV Site Plan and Design Review include the following: • That the project furthers the goals of this Specific Plan by encouraging practical and market-friendly development, ensuring return on investment, strengthening a sense of place, enhancing and humanizing the public realm, and catalyzing mode shift; • That the project provides a public benefit which is consistent with the goals of the Specific Plan and furthers an important goal(s) stated in adopted city policy documents as identified by the Community Development Director. These documents include, but are not limited to: o EL Cerrito Climate Action Plan o El Cerrito Strategic Plan o This General Plan, especially this Housing Element o El Cerrito Economic Development Action Plan o El Cerrito Urban Greening Plan o El Cerrito Active Transportation Plan • That the development will not have an undue adverse effect upon the Transect Zone in which it is located, and will be compatible with the design features and land uses permitted in the Transect Zone in which the project is located. • That the proposed development complies with the intent of the Specific Plan, and; • That the project implements applicable goals and policies of this General Plan. Housing Element Page 53 Amend text to: 4. Emergency Shelters, Transitional Housing and Single Room Occupancy Units In 2008, a new State law was adopted (Government Code 65583 requiring local jurisdictions to identify a zone or zones where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use without a conditional use or other discretionary permit. The City Zoning ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Attachment 2 Exhibit A Ordinance allows emergency shelters as a permitted use under “Community Social Service Facilities” within the Community Commercial (CC) zone. The definition of Community Social Service Facilities as listed in the City’s Zoning Ordinance is below: Community Social Service Facilities. Any noncommercial facility, such as homeless shelters, emergency shelters and facilities providing social services such as job referral, housing placement and which may also provide meals, showers, and/or laundry facilities, typically for less than 30 days. Specialized programs and services related to the needs of the residents may also be provided. This classification excludes transitional housing facilities that provide living accommodations for a longer term. As updated by the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan, emergency shelters are also permitted in the TOHIMU and TOMIMU zones, subject to specified operational standards. The definition of Emergency Shelter as listed in the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan is: Emergency Shelters. Housing with minimal supportive services for homeless persons that is limited to occupancy of six months or less by a homeless person or family. No individual or household may be denied emergency shelter because of an inability to pay. Medical assistance, counseling and meals may be provided. The City Zoning Ordinance allows transitional housing as a permitted use under “Transitional Housing” within the Community Commercial (CC) zone and as a conditional use in the Transit Oriented Mixed Use (TOM) zone. The definition of Transitional Housing as listed in the City’s Zoning Ordinance is below: Transitional Housing. Establishments providing temporary housing in a structured living environment and where residents have access to various voluntary support services, such as health, mental health, education and employment/training services to obtain skills necessary for independent living. Living accommodations are shared living quarters with or without separate kitchen or bath facilities for each room or unit. The occupancy period shall be at least 30 days. This category excludes temporary housing that does not include support services and community social service facilities such as emergency shelters. As updated in 2014 by the San Pablo Specific Plan, transitional housing and supportive housing are allowed in the TOHIMU and TOMIMU zones under the same standards as other types of permitted residential uses. The definitions of transitional housing and supportive housing contained within the San Pablo Specific Plan Land Use Definitions are: Transitional Housing. Buildings configured as rental housing developments, but operated under program requirements that require the termination of assistance and recirculating of the assisted unit to another eligible program recipient at a predetermined future point in time that shall be no less than six months from the beginning of assistance. ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Attachment 2 Exhibit A Supportive Housing, Housing with no limit on length of stay that is occupied by the target population, and that is linked to an onsite or offsite service that assists the supportive housing resident in retaining the housing, improving his or her health status, and maximizing his or her ability to live and, where possible, work in the community. The City Zoning Ordinance allows single room occupancy units (SRO) as a permitted use under “Group Housing” within the Community Commercial (CC) and, within the San Pablo Specific Plan Area, as an allowed use with an Administrative Use Permit in the Transit Oriented Mixed Use (TOM) TOHIMU and TOMIMU zones. The definition of Group Housing as listed in the City’s Zoning Ordinance and in the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan is below: Group Housing. Shared living quarters without separate kitchen or bathroom facilities for each room or unit. This classification includes rooming and boardinghouses, dormitories, and private residential clubs, offering shared living quarters, but excludes hotels, residential care facilities and transitional housing facilities. Housing Element Page 59 Add to Planning Fees: For projects within the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan, see the Master Fee Schedule for permit and design review fees. Housing Element Page 59 Add to Permit Processing Procedures: For projects within the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Area, see Specific Plan Section 2.02 Administration of the Regulating Code for additional information on permit processing procedures. Housing Element Page 61 Add to Design Review: For projects within the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Area, see Specific Plan Section 2.02.08 Application for Discretionary Actions Requiring a Public Hearing for additional Design Review requirements. Housing Element Page 74 to 90 Amend text of Housing Element Goals, Policies and Programs to: ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Attachment 2 Exhibit A Policy 5: Encourage the development of multi-family residential uses in mixed-use projects, in the redevelopment area, and near transit- oriented facilities to help meet ABAG’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation for El Cerrito and so that housing and commercial uses can complement and support one another. The City will encourage the construction of transit-oriented developments (TODs) that seek to maximize opportunities for the use of public transit and transportation corridors through high-density residential and mixed-use projects along those corridors in accordance with the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan and the City’s Incentives Program (Chapter 19.23 of the El Cerrito Zoning Ordinance Program 5.1: Maintain General Plan designations for mixed use and high-density residential housing, and the Transit Oriented Mixed Use districts and implement the Transit-Oriented High-Intensity Mixed-Use (TOHIMU) and Transit-Oriented Mid- Intensity Mixed-Use (TOMIMU) Transect Zones of the Specific Plan in the development nodes of the City. Responsibility: Planning Division Time Frame: Ongoing Funding: General Fund Policy 19: Promote fair housing opportunities for all people. Program 19.4: To comply with Senate Bill (SB) 2 the City will continue to maintain appropriate land use definitions of emergency shelters, transitional housing and supportive housing to homeless individuals and families and allow those uses by right to be allowed by right in the CC (Community Commercial) and the TOHIMU and TOMIMU zones. Responsibility: Planning Division Time Frame: Ongoing Funding: General Fund Policy 23: Encourage the location of multi-family housing near transit centers where living and/or working environments are within walkable distances in order to reduce auto trips to work, roadway expansion and air pollution. Program 23.1: Continue to enforce the sections of the Zoning Ordinance that increase density, reduce parking requirements, and establish design and development standards to create inviting, mixed- use neighborhoods around transit. Enforce the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan. Responsibility: Planning Division Time Frame: Ongoing Funding: General Fund ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Attachment 2 Exhibit A Appendix C Design and Development Guide of the General Plan is deleted. It is superseded by the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan. ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Exhibit B ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Attachment 3 RESOLUTION NO. 2014-XX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EL CERRITO ADOPTING THE SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN WHEREAS, in 2007, El Cerrito Redevelopment Agency undertook development of the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan jointly with the City of Richmond; and WHEREAS, city staff and the consultant worked collaboratively on the Plan along with members of the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Advisory Committee (SPAAC) and through Planning Commission, Design Review Board and general public meetings; and WHEREAS, a draft Specific Plan was completed in 2009 along with an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND); and WHEREAS, based on comments received, a second draft was completed in 2010; and WHEREAS, in March of 2011, the Council directed staff to do further revisions to the Specific Plan to deal with open space issues, expand the parking study and economic analysis, create more location-appropriate density, height and land use strategies to better reflect the priorities of the City Council, and better align the plan with contemporary land use and transit standards; and WHEREAS, in November of 2011, the City Council provided additional recommendations, including that the Plan allow increased height and densities near the BART stations, more flexible parking requirements with lower minimums, and a more flexible approach to mixed-use, including allowing ground floor residential throughout the Plan area; and WHEREAS, in April of 2013, the City Council approved revisions to the scope of the Specific Plan, including the preparation of a Programmatic Environmental Impact Report and the addition of a Complete Streets Plan; and WHEREAS, the Specific Plan process included substantial public participation through the years including a community workshops held on July 23, 2013 and October 19, 2013, as well as study sessions with the Design Review Board on July 2, 2014 the Planning Commission on July 17, 2013, November 20, 2013 and July 16, 2014 and a study session with the City Council on November 5, 2013; and WHEREAS, the Draft Specific Plan was released for public review on June 3, 2014; and WHEREAS, on June 3, 2014, the City released for a 45-day public review period a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) which identified and evaluated the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, the City completed the Final Environmental Impact Report and prepared a revised Specific Plan incorporating many revisions received from appointed and elected officials as well as the public at large and released both documents for public review on ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Attachment 3 August 28, 2014; and WHEREAS, adoption of the Specific Plan has complied with the provisions of Government Code Section 65453; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on September 4, 2014 at which it received testimony and other evidence and recommended that the City Council adopt and approve the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan, Certify the Environmental Impact Report, approve the General Plan Amendment, and approve the amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and other amendments to the El Cerrito Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on September 22, 2014 at which it received testimony and other evidence and certified the Environmental Impact Report, adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations, adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, approved the General Plan Amendment, and approved the amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and other amendments to the El Cerrito Municipal Code; and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of El Cerrito that, based on its review and consideration of revised Specific Plan, attached exhibits, and associated Final Environmental Impact Report, and all public testimony: 1. Finds that the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan is in the public interest and will advance the health, safety, and general welfare of the City of El Cerrito. 2. Finds that the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan is consistent with the El Cerrito General Plan as amended in Attachment 2 to the staff report and adopted by Resolution No. 2014-XX. 3. Hereby adopts the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan, as attached hereto in Exhibit A. I CERTIFY that at a regular meeting on September 22, 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 September X, 2014. Cheryl Morse, City Clerk ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Attachment 3 APPROVED: Janet Abelson, Mayor ---PAGE BREAK--- OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY HALL 10940 San Pablo Avenue, El Cerrito, CA 94523-3034 Telephone (510) 215-4305 Fax (510) 215-4319 http://www.el-cerrito.org September 22, 2014 Special City Council Meeting Item No. 6(B) SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN and ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CERTIFICATION Attachment 3(a) Draft San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan, dated August 2014 is posted on the City’s website at www.el-cerrito.org/SPASP and is also available for review in hardcopy format at the following locations: Office of the City Clerk 10940 San Pablo Avenue El Cerrito (510) 215-4305 and The El Cerrito Library El Cerrito 6510 Stockton Avenue ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Attachment 4 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EL CERRITO REZONING PROPERTIES LOCATED IN THE SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA SECTION 1. RECITALS A. On September 4, 2014, (Resolution PC 14-12, Exhibit 1) the Planning Commission considered the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan (SPASP) project and recommended that the City Council certify the EIR; and B. On September 4, 2014, (Resolution PC 14-12 ) the Planning Commission considered the SPASP and recommended that the City Council adopt the SPASP; and C. On September 22, 2014, the City Council held a public hearing to consider the EIR and the SPASP, to public comment and testimony, and (Resolution No. 2014-XX) certified the EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act; and D. On September 22, 2014, the City Council adopted a General Plan Amendment (Resolution No. 2014-XX) to implement the SPASP; and E. In order to further implement the SPASP and to ensure consistency between the General Plan and the Zoning Map, corresponding amendments to the Zoning Map must be made. SECTION 2. REZONE SECTION 1. The zoning map of the City of El Cerrito is hereby amended such that certain real property currently zoned/described as: the 174.1 acres of the Plan that exist within the City of El Cerrito’s jurisdiction. The Plan area extends for approximately 2.5 miles from El Cerrito Plaza and El Cerrito’s border with the City of Albany on the south to the Ohlone Greenway near the BART tracks and Baxter Creek on the north. At the south end of the Plan area, the project boundary extends east to include the El Cerrito Plaza BART Station and west along Central Avenue to I-80. Generally, the Plan area includes the San Pablo Avenue roadway and the parcels fronting on the avenue; and more particularly described in Exhibit A are rezoned to San Pablo Specific Plan. SECTION 3. 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 4. EFFECTIVE DATE This ordinance shall not take effect until thirty days after the second reading, November 6, 2014. The foregoing ordinance was introduced at a special meeting of the City Council on September 22, 2014 and passed by the following vote: ---PAGE BREAK--- AYES: Councilmembers NOES: Councilmembers ABSTAIN: Councilmembers ABSENT: Councilmembers Adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the October 7, 2014 and passed by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers NOES: Councilmembers 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 September X, 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 day of September, 2014; and that said Ordinance has been published and/or posted in the manner required by law. ---PAGE BREAK--- WITNESS my hand and the Official Seal of the City of El Cerrito, California, this __th day of October, 2014. Cheryl Morse, City Clerk Exhibit A –List of properties within the Plan Area Exhibit B- Specific Plan Zoning Map ---PAGE BREAK--- OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY HALL 10890 San Pablo Avenue, El Cerrito, CA 94523-3034 Telephone (510) 215-4305 Fax (510) 215-4379 http://www.el-cerrito.org September 22, 2014 City Council Meeting Agenda Item 6(B) Attachment 4 – Exhibit A List of properties within the Plan Area Hardcopies are available for review at: Office of the City Clerk and The El Cerrito Library 10890 San Pablo Avenue 6510 Stockton Avenue El Cerrito, CA El Cerrito, CA (510) 215-4305 ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6B Attachment 4 Exhibit B ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Attachment 5 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EL CERRITO AMENDING TITLE 19 OF THE EL CERRITO MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING CHAPTER 19.15 TO INCORPORATE THE SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA SECTION 1. RECITALS A. On September 4, 2014, (Resolution PC 14-12, Exhibit 1) the Planning Commission considered the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan (SPASP) project and recommended that the City Council certify the EIR; and B. On September 4, 2014, (Resolution PC 14-2) the Planning Commission considered the SPASP and recommended that the City Council adopt the SPASP; and C. On September 22, 2014, the City Council held a public hearing to consider the EIR and the SPASP, to public comment and testimony, and (Resolution No. 2014-XX) certified the EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act; and D. On September 22, 2014, the City Council adopted a General Plan Amendment (Resolution No. 2014-XX) to implement the SPASP; and E. In order to further implement the SPASP and to ensure consistency between the General Plan and the Zoning Map, corresponding amendments to the Zoning Map must be made. SECTION 2. MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EL CERRITO DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: El Cerrito Municipal Code Title 19, Z o n i n g is hereby amended to add C h a p t e r 19.15, to read as follows: Part III – Special District Regulations Chapter 19.15: San Pablo Avenue Special Plan District (SPASPD) 19.15.010 Purpose The general purpose of the San Pablo Avenue Special Plan District is to recognize and designate the unique planning context of the San Pablo Avenue corridor and to prescribe planning and design principles for the plan area. In addition to furthering the general principles of the El Cerrito zoning ordinance, the specific purposes of the district include the following: A. To establish area-specific and context-sensitive development standards to produce an attractive, coherent and efficient built environment. ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Attachment 5 B. To identify public improvements necessary to accommodate and support development in the plan area. C. To permit development in the plan area while ensuring adequate standards relating to public health, safety, welfare, comfort and convenience. 19.15.020 Applicability The San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan was adopted by the City Council on September 22, 2014 by Resolution No. 2014-XX. All notations, references, and other information shown in the SPASP are incorporated by reference and shall be deemed as much a part of this title as if the matter and information set forth in the plan were fully described in this chapter. All terms not otherwise defined in the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan shall have the meaning set forth in the El Cerrito Municipal Code. In the event of a conflict between the terms, conditions, requirements, policies, or other provisions of the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan and the El Cerrito Municipal Code, the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan shall take precedence. 19.15.030 Permitted Uses Land uses within the San Pablo Avenue Special Plan District shall be permitted as prescribed in the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan. 19.15.040 Development Standards Development standards within the San Pablo Avenue Special Plan District shall be those standards prescribed in the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan. SECTION 3. 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 4. EFFECTIVE DATE This ordinance shall not take effect until thirty days after the second reading, November 6, 2014. The foregoing ordinance was introduced at a special meeting of the City Council on September 22, 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 October 7, 2014 and passed by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers NOES: Councilmembers ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 6(B) Attachment 5 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 October 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 day of October, 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 October, 2014. Cheryl Morse, City Clerk ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Bill 6(B) Attachment 6 1 Memorandum Date: September 11, 2014 To: Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council From: Margaret Development Services Manager Melanie Mintz, Interim Community Development Director Subject: Errata This document lists all the changes to the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan, the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring Checklist since the release of the August Plan and EIR. The California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) only requires that an EIR be recirculated prior to certification where “significant new information” is added to the EIR after the draft EIR is circulated for public comment, but before certification. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15088.5) “Significant new information” is defined as: 1) a new significant impact on the environment from the project that was previously undisclosed; 2) a substantial increase in the severity of a previously disclosed environmental impact; 3) a new feasible project alternative or mitigation measure that would lessen the significant impacts of the project, but which the project proponent declines to adopt; or 4) wholesale revisions to the EIR because the draft EIR released to the public “was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public comment were precluded.” (Id.) Recirculation is not required where the new information merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications to the information already in the EIR. (Id.) In Staff’s opinion, the changes included in this errata are minor and do not represent significant changes to either the SPASP of the requiring recirculation of the EIR. They are minor corrections or clarifications. Staff has worked diligently to identify each place that these changes may occur however, failure to note each place in these documents where these changes occur, does not preclude staff from making these corrections at a later date. ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Bill 6(B) Attachment 6 2 Strikethrough indicates deletion; red indicates insertion Items added by the Planning Commission have been added to facilitate review. These changes are noted in blue. SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN Page 01.02-19 Goal E. Catalyze Mode Shift Strategy 1. Promote residential infill development through increased land use intensity close to existing transit infrastructure. Page 02.02-8 FBC Table 01. Administrative Tiers Tier II Major Additions, Improvements or New Construction that complies with all Standards of the Specific Plan Page 02.02-34 20.02.12.04 Notice of Hearing. (Recommended by Planning Commission) For all cases requiring a Notice of Hearing, the Zoning Administrator shall within 15 21days prior to the hearing send notice by first class mail or other approved method to each owner of real property as last disclosed by County real estate tax records, situated wholly or partially within the notification distances specified in El Cerrito Municipal Code Section 19.32.050. A notice shall also be mailed to every property address within the notification distances specified in El Cerrito Municipal Code Section 19.32.050. The project site shall also be posted at least 21 days prior to the hearing with basic land use information regarding the proposed project. Page 02.05-76 2.05.02.03 Views To acknowledge existing key natural and scenic views of Mount Tamalpais, the Golden Gate Bridge, Albany Hill, the East Bay Hills and the San Francisco Skyline, and to leverage context- sensitive design and minimize the impact of new development on these views. Design solutions ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Bill 6(B) Attachment 6 3 might include adjustments in height, bulk, setbacks and orientation to frame or retain partial views. The following figures will be updated to show these additional key natural and scenic views: 1. FBC Figure 50 Key Views 2. View from El Cerrito del Norte BART Station Platform 3. View from El Cerrito Plaza BART Station Platform Page 02.05-110 to 02.05-111 FBC Table 30. Number of Parking Spaces Required Transit Oriented Higher Intensity Use Less than 3000 Sq ft Larger than 3000 Sq ft Bicycle Parking Residential Min. 1 short-term bicycle space/10 units (Min. 2 short-term spaces) Min. 1.5 long-term bicycle spaces/unit 2.05.09.05 Parking Adjustments Reduction of Parking. The required number of parking spaces regulated within Section 2.05.09.04 Number of Motor Vehicle Parking Spaces Required may be reduced per the methods described in this Section. Existing parking that is determined to be nonconforming in accordance with El Cerrito Municipal Code Chapter 19.27 Nonconforming Uses, Structures and Lots, because less than the required number of spaces are provided, shall not be further reduced from the number of parking spaces required by available on the effective date of this Form-Based Code. A. Transit 1. Required residential parking spaces may be eliminated, as approved by the Zoning Administrator, for any use located within one quarter mile of a BRT bus stop and BART stop, and 50% for any use located within ¼ mile of a bus stop. C. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Parking Adjustment. The Zoning Administrator shall have the ability to reduce the motor vehicle parking requirements for office ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Bill 6(B) Attachment 6 4 and other uses in Section 2.03.02 Transect Zones and Section 2.05.09.04 Number of Motor Vehicle Parking Spaces Required. 2. If a TDM Program has not been adopted by the City or alternate strategies are being proposed, a TDM Plan shall be submitted by a registered traffic transportation planner engineer Page 3.03-23 3.03.02.01.01 Streetscape Improvements (Recommended by Planning Commission) Revised 3rd bullet: • Add landscaping bulb-outs with two standard curb ramps at all intersections. Landscaping bulbs in the parking lane may be considered at key intersections if sidewalk is insufficient for appropriate landscaping and pending confirmation of adequate supply of off-street parking. The following figures will be updated to show the intent of the revised language, above: 1. CS23 Downtown San Pablo Avenue Bird’s-eye Perspective View 2. CS30 Prototypical Midtown San Pablo Avenue Plan View 3. CS31 Prototypical Midtown San Pablo Avenue Bird’s-eye Perspective View SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR) Page 3-7 Goal E: Catalyze Mode Shift Strategy 1: Promote infill development through increased land use intensity close to existing transit infrastructure. Strategy 2: Reduce parking requirements to encourage transit use and reduce reliance on the private automobile Strategy 3: Strengthen pedestrian and bicycle connectivity through existing and new connections that provide more alternatives to single-occupancy vehicles. Strategy 4: Integrate opportunities to create Complete Streets, multimodal travel ways that balance all users. ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Bill 6(B) Attachment 6 5 Strategy 5: Improve connectivity between the Green Belt (Wildcat Canyon Trail) and the Blue Belt (Bay Trail) through pedestrian and bicycle connections. Strategy 6: Improve walkability through more intensive and varied development that provides additional services and locates more future residents in service-rich nodes. Strategy 7: Increase the supply, diversity and affordability of housing in proximity to existing or planned transportation investments. Page 3-8 3.4.1 Form-Based Code (Chapter 2 of the Specific Plan) • Intent of Use of the Code • Administration of the Regulating Code • Regulating Plan -Transect Zone -Street Types • Development Standards -Regulation by Street Type • Supplemental General Development Standards -Site Layout -Building Articulation -Sustainable Design Elements and Public Art -Open Space -Parking Standards -Landscaping, Fencing and Screening • Signage • Definitions SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST Page 3 AIR QUALITY IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE (Performance Criteria) Implementation Entity Monitoring and Verification Entity Timing Req’ts Impact 5-1: Construction Period Emissions. Implementation of the Specific Plan would result in short-term emissions from construction activities associated with subsequent development, including site grading, asphalt paving, building construction, and architectural coating. Emissions commonly Mitigation 5-1. Implement the following BAAQMD-recommended measures to control particulate matter emissions during construction. These measures would reduce diesel particulate matter, PM10, and PM2.5 from construction to ensure that short- term health impacts to nearby sensitive receptors are avoided or Individual project applicants City Condition of grading permit issuance; Condition of building permit issuance; Field verify implementation during grading and ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Bill 6(B) Attachment 6 6 associated with construction activities include fugitive dust from soil disturbance, fuel combustion from mobile heavy- duty diesel- and gasoline- powered equipment, portable auxiliary equipment, and worker commute trips. During construction, 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. Demolition and renovation of buildings can also generate PM10 and PM2.5 emissions. 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. The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines do not identify plan- level thresholds that apply to construction. Although construction activities at individual project sites are expected to occur during a relatively short time period, the combination of temporary dust from activities and diesel exhaust from construction equipment poses both a health and nuisance impact to nearby receptors. In addition, NOX emissions during grading and soil import/export for large projects may exceed the BAAQMD NOX emission thresholds. Without application of appropriate control measures to reduce construction dust and exhaust, construction period impacts would be considered a reduced: Dust (PM10 and PM2.5) Control Measures:  Limit traffic speeds on any unpaved roads to 15 5 mph. Additional Measures to Reduce Diesel Particulate Matter and PM2.5 and other construction emissions:  Clear signage at all construction sites shall be posted indicating that diesel and gasoline equipment standing idle for more than five two minutes shall be turned off. This would include trucks waiting to deliver or receive soil, aggregate or other bulk materials. Rotating drum concrete trucks could keep their engines running continuously as long as they were on-site or adjacent to the construction site.  Maintain written logs on site and available for review showing the maintenance of all gasoline and diesel engines on site to ensure Properly tune and maintain equipment for low emissions. Implementation of these measures would reduce project construction- related air quality impacts to a less- than-significant level. construction ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Bill 6(B) Attachment 6 7 potentially significant impact. Page 22 Impact 13-3: Construction Noise. Businesses and residences would be intermittently exposed to high levels of noise throughout the 2040 plan horizon. Construction would elevate noise levels at adjacent businesses and residences by 15 to 20 dBA or more. This is a significant impact. Mitigation 13-3. Construction equipment shall be well-maintained and used judiciously to be as quiet as practical. The following measures, when applicable, are recommended to reduce noise from construction activities: Ensure that construction activities (including the loading and unloading of materials and truck movements) are limited to the hours or 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday • 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays • Work is prohibited on Sundays and holidays. • Work may be prohibited during inclement weather by order of the City Building Official. • 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM on weekdays and between the hours of 9:00 AM and 8:00 PM on weekends and holidays. Ensure that excavating, grading, and filling activities (including warming of equipment motors) are limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday • 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays • Work is prohibited on Sundays and holidays. • Work may be prohibited during inclement weather by order of the City Building Official. • 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM on weekdays and between the hours of 9:00 AM and 8:00 PM on weekends and holidays. Although the above measures would reduce noise generated by construction, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable as a result of the extended period of time that adjacent receivers could be exposed to construction noise. Individual project applicants City Condition of grading permit issuance; Condition of building permit issuance; Field verify implementation during grading and construction ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Bill 6(B) Attachment 6 8 Page 24 Impact 13-4: Construction- Related Vibration. Residences, businesses, and historic structures could be exposed to construction-related vibration during the excavation and foundation work of buildings. This is a significant impact. Mitigation 13-4. The following measures are recommended to reduce vibration from construction activities:  Avoid using vibratory rollers and tampers near sensitive areas. If their use is unavoidable, state the reasons in writing and include explanation with building permit submittal. It may not be possible to avoid using pile drivers, vibratory rollers, and tampers entirely during construction facilitated by the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan. Due to the density of development in the area, some of these activities may take place near sensitive areas. In these cases, the mitigation measures listed above may not be sufficient to reduce ground-borne vibrations below a level of significance. Therefore, this impact would be significant and unavoidable. Individual project applicants City Condition of grading permit issuance; Condition of building permit issuance; Field verify implementation during grading and construction ---PAGE BREAK--- ATTACHMENT 7 PUBLIC COMMENTS SEPTEMBER 4 TO SEPTEMBER 15 Agenda Item No. 6(B) Attachment 7 ---PAGE BREAK--- - C HHE=@; I?H 86- 113/!04 2 34 00634 2 "!34 %$#"!5BMC F@=!.EJ B?K; G>"!7J ; BDJ I!/G??A September 12, 2014 E L X ; J W RW 5 R]b ? J W J P N [ 5 R]b X O 7 U5 N [[R]X * ) 0 1 ) E J W B J K UX 3 _ N 7 U5 N [[R]X % 5 3 1 - . , ) Re: Comments on the Traffic Analysis for the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan 6 N J [ ? [ ; J W RW % < X W Ub [N L N W ]Ub W X ]RL N M RW ]Q N ? F5 Q N J MURW N \ ]Q J ] ]Q N 5 R]b ` J \ Y X R\ N M ]X J Y Y [X _ N E J W B J K UX 3 _ N W ^ N E Y N L RORL B UJ W #E B 3 E B 3 \ J OX [V N [ L X W L ] 5 R]b F[J OORL 7 W P RW N N [ J W M UX W P &]RV N K RL bL UN L X V V ^ ]N [ < ` J \ RW ][RP ^ N M K b ]Q N Y UJ W J W M ` J \ Y UN J \ N M ]X \ N N R] R\ W N J [RW P J Y Y [X _ J U' ; X ` N _ N < ` J \ ]Q N W \ Q X L T N M J ] ]Q N V R\ RW OX [V J ]RX W K N RW P Y [X _ RMN M ]X ]Q N MN L R\ RX W V J T N [N P J [MRW P ]Q N RV Y J L X O L N RW L X V Y X W N W X O ]Q N Y UJ W % \ Y N L RORL J UUb ]Q N [N V X _ J UX O OX ^ [ MROON [N W ] N aR\ ]RW P ]Q [X ^ P Q UJ W N \ [W UJ W N \ J ] ]Q N RW ]N N L ]RX W X O 5 ^ ]]RW P 4 X ^ UN _ J [M J W M E J W B J K UX 3 _ N W ^ N ' I R]Q X ^ ] P X RW P RW ]X MN ]J RU< L J W J \ \ ^ [N bX ^ ]Q N J W J Ub\ R\ X O ]Q N RV Y J L X O ]Q N \ N UJ W N [N V X _ J U\ R\ RW J L L ^ [J ]N J \ R] L ^ W ]Ub \ ]J W M\ ' FQ R\ R\ V b J V Y ] ]X N aY UJ RW ]Q J ] P N ]]RW P \ X V N J MMR]RX W J UJ W J Ub\ R\ X O ]Q N \ N R\ \ ^ N \ R\ Y [X K J K Ub ` J W ]N M K N OX [N J Y Y [X _ RW P ]Q N Y UJ W ' 4 N OX [N < N aY UJ RW ]Q N OJ L X W ]Q R\ < ]Q RW T R] R\ RV Y X W ] ]X W X ]N ]Q J ] < Q J _ N ]Q N P [N J ]N \ ] [N \ Y N L ] OX [ ]Q N UN J MN Q RY RW 7 U5 N [[R]X J W M < ` X ^ UM W X ] K N \ ^ K V R]]RW P ]Q N \ N L X V V N W RO < ]Q X ^ P Q ] ]Q N b ` X ^ UM Y [N _ N W ] ]Q N 5 R]b O[X V J Y Y [X _ RW P ]Q N Y UJ W J \ R] L ^ W ]Ub \ ]J W M\ ' ? b L X V V N W L X ^ UM N J \ RUb K N L X W \ RMN [N M ]X K N \ RV Y Ub J MROON [N W L N X O X Y RW RX W J V X W P OORL N W P RW N N ' J W N $ RW ]Q N 7 AE R\ X W Ub K N RW P N URV RW J ]N M J \ J L [R]N [RJ ^ W MN [ 5 7 C3 d R] MX N \ W X ] \ ^ Y N N MN UX L J U> AE \ ]J W MJ ' FQ N P ^ RMN URW N \ \ Y N L RORL J UUb \ ]J ]N ]Q J ] e? J RW ]J RW RW P UN _ N UX O \ N RL N RW Y UJ W W RW P J UUX ` \ J S^ MRL ]RX W ]X K J UJ W L N J ^ ]X V X K RUN MN UJ b ` R]Q X ]Q N [ RW ]N [N \ f' < ` X ^ UM \ ^ P P N \ ] ]Q J ] ]Q N [N V X _ J UX O _ N UUJ W N \ R\ W X ] K N RW P K J UJ W L N M X ^ ] Q N [N ' ) ` RUUW X ] K N ` RMN W N M RW ]Q N O^ [N #RW \ ]N J M bX ^ g[N P N ]]RW P [J V Y V N ]N [RW P J W M V N \ \ J P N \ RP W \ $ J W M E J W B J K UX 3 _ N W ^ N ` RUU[N V J RW J L [R]RL J UL X W P N \ ]RX W K bY J \ \ [X ^ ]N % J L [R]RL J L T [X ^ ]N % J W M J L [R]RL J UJ [b OX [ K ^ \ W \ Y X ]RX W ' G W URT N X ]Q N [ 5 X V Y UN ]N E N Y [X P [J V \ % ]Q R\ Y UJ W J \ \ ^ V N \ \ RP W RORL J W ]Ub RW L [N J \ N M W \ R] ^ \ N ` R]Q X ^ ] J L J UUb Y [X _ RMRW P J W b \ RP W RORL J W ] RV Y [X _ N V N W ]X L J Y J L R]b X [ J L L N \ \ ]X W \ ---PAGE BREAK--- - < G; C HHE= I? H 8 6 - 1 1 3/ !0 4 2 34 0 0 6 34 2 "!34 / # Page 3 of 3 –SPASP Traffic Comments RL N W \ N @ X ' * 0 . + ---PAGE BREAK--- JO 3M 4RPN. 3MMFO 0EMFR ?NBOEBMBY(*+/BPM#DPN@ 5 " WWW#BVH#DPN $ >JRUS " 2BTF. 9BHF & ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK---        & !    * (  (   &           "  1?@A:=B837  B5?=486C    +0 & #    + * * . . +0 + + * + + . +   +0 +  +  +0 &  * - * +  ) % * % + +  + % +  % . + + % % + %     ---PAGE BREAK--- GE388<5 47 ;BEE7A6BHF& J7 ?B53??L%BJA76 4HF34?7 3A6 3557FF<4?7& G; A7J LBE> JDB$ 1EB@GBA ?S 0=4 # RRR$>QD$@KI % =FMPN 2>O>?>NB/ # ;BHB>NB 2>OB/ 9>DB ( KC ( CFHB/%%%5/%186623=%9H>JN!(&"!(&9KHF@FBN%<90!(&J%(#1KIIBJON% &   < $ 3  60   86" "3    8  60   <   $  &   $ 6    B  00"3 < 1 B C   $ 0 D " ---PAGE BREAK--- , R##*2#HH>) ,3 #C \L,>-3O #C , X) R) ,C3)" >)C3' X) Y-3/ B#L*I-> U,33,I/)2V' a#L". Q-*I)")>O0 ---PAGE BREAK---     $ &  &    "  3   3 4  3 6 & 81&31&9  :  = : @  2 :    6+2    : 1&31&<   . ;      :   0 A <      ( <      :   :   6 F     : :     >    1&31& > (   C+     : < = . 66 :  6 . >   : :  6 :   + B6  ?     : 6 =   :   62  .    6 :  6 :  66+ : =        : :  6 2   :  F : . 2G = : . F H :    I :  :  6 F6       :  = B 2   5  :  6 . 5< = : >  : : : @   F H  .  ---PAGE BREAK---      %5  6$ 83+53+9 4   704- 77 3+53+ 2 ;    & 40   04 &  3+53+ 77  .    40& 40 77 4 5A 2 5A D ---PAGE BREAK---    A7    2 4 5A E0  5 ---PAGE BREAK---       &     , / $ 0,123  , 4  5 + 0 &7   5 + 0 95+75+:       / $ 0,123 6   806"-   8 , 5+75+ 3 '  ;  ,    "  60  " ,  3 8  ;   0  0   3   3 8  ,    3 5+75+        8"  ; 8 =   ,  "  ,    3   60 , "   8" "   60   880"   6   7 A  00"3  7 A   ,   , 0 D  ---PAGE BREAK---  A8 ?0 ,   3   6   3    3      7 A 9 E0 5  2   ---PAGE BREAK---  &    &       !188; " -9 - )5/49;:0 ::1C =1>501:? " ?41 2;88;B5:3 81??1= % 5: #@8D ;.61/?5:3 ?41 4534 01:>5?D ?41 5: 8 )5/49;:0 " 9-71 4-A1 5? ?41 5: ?41 5?D  #@8D    ( + 97-A-:-@34 8D:/4/5 18 97-A-:-@34 8D:/4/5 18   !    " =1-0 ?41 -88;B 4534 01:>5?D 01A18;<91:? -8;:3 A1:@1 5: 9D :1534.;=4;;0 " 25:0 ?41 501- -8-=95:3 ;2 ?41 /4-:31 5? B;@80 .=5:3 ?41 5A1 >5C .@5805:3> B;@80 25? B5?4 ?41 ;2 ?41 :1534.;=4;;0 ?41D B;@80 ><;58 A51B> ;A1=B4189 1C5>?5:3 .@5805:3> +=-225/ <-=75:3 -8=1-0D 1:;@34 ?41 45341= 01:>5?D B;@80 1A1: 9;=1 B5?4 %->>5A1 .@5805:3 B;@80 4-A1 :13-?5A1 1:A5=;:91:?-8 %D 5> =@81> ?41 950?;B: -8=1-0D -88;B 3=;B?4 B5?4 ?4=11 .@5805:3> 5> >@225/51:? (81->1 0; -88;B ?45> :1B 3; 2;=B-=0 )5/49;:0  A5=@> 2;@:0 5: ?45> 91>>-31 41/710 .D BBB -A3    )181->1    (-31 ;2     2581 , (;85/51> *<1/525/  *1 ---PAGE BREAK--- D3 (>317471 &:/<.0CA6 CA6 ,@/<0CA65;/7: (3B3;03@   $3:/<73 $7317471 C> (B/BCA :/5532 E6=; 7B B63 0C7:27<5 A>317471/B7=317471 A33; B= 03 E/G =CB =4 0/:/<13 / :7D3/0:3 <37560=@6==2 )63 1C@@3/1B 235@/23 ?C/:7BG =4 :743 1@3/B3 4C@B63@ AB@3AA B63 3F7AB7<5 7<4@/AB@C1BC@3 ! 6/D3 031=;3 /E/@3 =4 B63 23D3:=>;3@=831B A33;A ;C16 :/@53 E7:: /55@/D/B3 B63 3F7AB7<5 B@/4471 1=<53AB7=< A/43BG /11=@27<5 B= B63 '716;=<2 <<3F %37560=@6==2 B63@3 4:/EA =;7AA7=@=831BA 1C@@3@=831BA ! D3@G 1=<13@<32 /0=CB B637@ 1C@@33 &:3/A3 E=@9 B= @3D7A3 B63 6756 23/1BA B@/4471 <=7A3 /3AB63B71A &:3/A3 7<1:C23 B67A 3;/7: :3BB3@ 7< B63 7BG =C<17: >/193B )6/<9 G=C CA6 CA7<3AA   : 3@@7B=  : '3A723<13 D3  '716;=<2    @/<0CA6/>>:7328@ &/AB &@3A723>:7328@ EEE 1/8> !4 G=C @3>:G B= / 3;/7: E7B6 ;C:B7>:3 @317>7373A >@3D34+22 2:998 2>4+22 '994+9 <759+ %.'41 ,57 566579:4/9> 95 3> 56/4/54 '8 ' .53+ 5<4+7 /4 > 4'3+ /8 >4+22 2:998 54 /8 :6 54 57 9.+7+ /8 '4 35;+8 ,753 95 "'(25 /4 2 +77/95 ,9+7 63 /8 7/*/):25:8 /4 9./8   ' 9.75:-. ,57 )'78 )53/4- '9 9.+4 9:74/4- :6 )'78 )53/4- ,753 )7588   5495 /4 56658/9+ */7+)9/54 '78 95 8956 6:22 5;+7 95 5, 75'* 85 59.+7 )'78 -5 /8 955 4'775< ,57 9./8 95 )549/4:+ 54 )574+7 5, "'(25 /8 $35- %+89+7 9.+7+ '285 ':95 8.568 54 )'78 6'71+* 54 62'4 <5:2* 3'057 675(2+38 /4 5, 2 +77/95 853+ 5, 5:7 4+/-.(578 /4 44+= 9.+/7 .53+8 ' 145< 9.+/7 .53+8 675('(2> )589  57 357+ 0:89 ,57 145< ' <5:2*49 <'49 5, 2 +77/95 89+'2/4- /9 ,753 ' <'9+7 6/6+ (7+'1 ,753 897++9 95 3> 95 44+= .53+8 (:/29 /4 357+ 897+88 54 5:7 /4,7'897:)9:7+ <5:2* 357+ 95 5:7 897++98 52* 6/6+8 3:89 459 .'66+4 95 2 +77/95 $+49 9./8  >4+22 2:998 0 6+253 (05/& 4*+3 $8  777#6)%0.   "+253       0(     ! ---PAGE BREAK---         !27=C .7,58<. 27 2=B 8>7,25 * 8/ 9>+52, !B 52?.  /;86 $*+58 27 %2,1687- 77.A =88 6*7B 08270 >9 -8@7 /;86 !2-=8@7 -.?.5896.7= 27 5 8/ !8=8; +.270 +>25= 87 /;86 @255 68;. =8 * 9;898<.- $*+58 $5*7 @255 68;. ,870.<=287 =8 *-3827270 %2,1687- 77.A 7.201+8;< /;86 5 77.A 186.8@7.;< <2A<=8;B 1201 +>25-270< 87 $*+58 =88 1201 +>54B 7 *--2=287 @255 =2,4B=*,4B +>25-270< -.?.5896.7= 875B @255 >05B )1B 9*;4270 08270 =8 @255 9*;4 =1.2; %2,1687- 77.A 7.201+8;< <86. 8/ /;86 $*+58 2 . 88- 77.A 8/ 5 78= 9*;4270 *55 8/ 9.895. 9*;4270 87 *;5<87 !2-=8@7 -.?.5896.7= /;86 27,.9=287 78= 9;83.,= /272<1.- =8 =8-*B <=255 .69=B B8> +>25- 78= 6.*7 @255 ,86. 1.201= 5262=< 87 $*+58 @8>5- 52?*+5. 58?.5B @255 * 8/ 58?.5B 5 1255< >54B =*55 +>25-270< 78= 95.*<270 =8 5884 2< * 2< * 78= -.?.5896.7= @2=1 =1.2; *,,869*7B270 782<. 9855>=287 8/ 875B =8 @255 782<. 9855>=287 @18 +.127- +>25-270 8-8;< @255 52*+252=2.< B8>; $*+58 $5*7 * 7.201+8;188- 7 *--2=287 8/ 95*7< =8 ,1*70. $*+58 27=8 * <1899270 -.<=27*=287 5*7.< =8 87. 5*7. $*+58 2< *7 2698;=*7= )1.7  *7 *55 ,86.< =8 $*+58 2< 08270 =8 08 @1.7 $*+58 87. 5*7. #7=8 *;5<87 * .78>01 ->;270 ,866>=. =26.< * =8 /2A &27,.;.5B 8?255. %85527 8?255.  8/    /25.  $852,2.< $5*7 866.7=< ---PAGE BREAK--- %2,1687- "8 /8>7- 27 =12< +B  ,86       8/    /25.  $852,2.< $5*7 866.7=< ---PAGE BREAK--- &01;> E4=D4 (?428582 >A #;>H3 >H=4 (4=C ,43=4B30H (4?C4<14A    F2;4CC4AB10H0A40=4FB6A>D?2>< $$8=CI284;24AA8C>20DB $4;0=84 $8=CI (D1942C &01;> E4=D4 (?428582 >A ;06 D? ;06 (C0CDB ;06643 (4=C 5A>< <<8BB8>= <44C8=6 F7827 ! 0CC4=343 0 BC055 A4?>AC F0B 38BCA81DC43 BD<<0A8I8=6 C74 6>0;B >5 )74H 0A4 0B (CA4=6C74= (4=B4 >5 &;024 =BDA4 '4CDA= !=E4BC<4=C =2>DA064 &A02C820; 0=3 $0A:4C A84=3;H 4E4;>?<4=C =70=24 0=3 D<0=8I4 &D1;82 '40;<  0C0;HI4 $>34 (785C ! D=34ABC>>3 C74 >0;B 4G24?C 5>A  0C0;HI4 $>34 (785C ! D=34ABC0=3 C78B  8C <40=B A43D24 A4;80=24 20AB 4=2>DA064 ?D1;82 CA0=B?>AC0C8>= 182H2;4 0=3 5>>C CA05582 !B C78B 2>C74A BC0C43 >0;B %40A;H >=4@D0AC4A >5 ; 4AA8C> A4B834=CB 0A4 >E4A 0AB 0A4 C748A <40=B >5 CA0=B?>AC0C8>= >5 F8;; <0:4 8C <>A4 385582D;C 5>A C74< C> 64C 0A>D=3 )74H 0A4 C> 18:4 F0;: 0=3 4E4= C0:4 ?D1;82 CA0=B?>AC0C8>= 0338C8>= F8;; 03E4AB4;H 8??8=6 0;>=6 &01;> E4=D4 1420DB4 >5 8=2A40B43 CA05582 2>=64BC8>= 0=3 ;02: >5 ?0A:8=6 H BCA4BB8=6 C74 ><<8BB8>= 70B 45542C8E4;H 86=>A43 C74 >C74A BC0C43 >0;B ! 4=2>DA064 F7> A403 C78B ;4CC4A C> FA8C4 C74 8CH >D=28; 0=3 A42><<4=3 A4942C8>= >5 C74 8= 8CB ?A4B4=C 5>A< #8:4 8C >A C74 8B BC8;; C74 ?A8<0AH <>34 >5 CA0=B?>AC0C8>= '43D28=6 ?0A:8=6 B?>CB F8C7 ?;0=C4A 1>G4B ?DCC8=6 0 B4?0A0C4 182H2;4 ;0=4 &01;> E4=D4 0=3 7867 34=B8CH 7>DB8=6 F8C7 ;8<8C43 ?0A:8=6 0A4 C74 F0H C> )74 8=2A40B43 2>=64BC8>= F8;; 6A83;>2: >DA 28CH '4B834=CB 0=3 E8B8C>AB 0A4 ;8:4;H C> B7>? 4;B4F74A4 #;>H3 >H=4   (27<83C #0=4 ; 4AA8C> &7>=4  E8ADB 5>D=3 8= C78B <4BB064 742:43 1H  FFF0E62>< +4AB8>=   +8ADB 0C010B4     '4;40B4 0C4   &064 ---PAGE BREAK--- JOHN and NORMA De PIANTO EL CERRITO, CALIFORNIA 94530 Date: September 10, 2014 Cheryl Morse, City Clerk El Cerrito City Hall 10890 San Pablo A\lenue El Cerrito, California 94530 FAX: 510·215·4379 Ms. Morse: FAX AND PHONE: I The idea of making San Pablo Avenu~ even harder to navigate is ridiculous. Right now, you can hardly get across the street either by foot or by car. There! is no reason to assume that foot traffic will increase or offer more clients to stores on the Ave. Sicytle traffic now is dangerous because many on bikes do not look out for their own safety and put drivers in dangerous positions. Please reconsider making the! residential streets around this strip traffic heavy and dangerous for people and children living there. Ousting cars is a long way off in the future- and maybe never. San Pablo A\lenue has not offered special stores that draw enough people to warrant disturbing the residents for an unreal dream when not even parking is available so you can get out of your car and become a 11walking shopper." El Cerrito is especially nice to live in because it is a small town-do not think that more people in smaller residences will promote the feelings we now enjoy. Please leave El cerrito a cozy small town. John and Norma De Pianto ---PAGE BREAK--- 07709 */04>.33:>8,47  &0;>08-0<    "07,940 "49>D  @09?0 &;0.414. $7,9  :77:A  7,220/        /04>.33:>8,47 86,@,9,?237C9.3.4 07.0<<4>: @09?0 &;0.414. $7,9 ?7     ?7C   ,@,9,?23!C9.3 ,8 , <0=4/09> 49 7 ,8 =><:927C ,2,49=> >30 @09?0 &;0.414. $7,9   A,C :1 E A,C >,77 >30 90423-:<3::/ %0,77C ,0=>30>4.= @40A -7:.6,20 ",6492 @09?0 8:<0 ?9,;;0,7492 E .:8;70>07C  4= >30 /4<0.>4:9 A:?7/ 7460 =00 /0@07:;0/ '<,114. 4= ,7<0,/C 0=;0.4,77C /?<492 .:88?>0 <0,>492 -460 7,90= :9 @09?0 A:?7/ -0 )30<0 4= 0@0 4= ,7<0,/C /4114.?7> 149/ ;,<6492 7:.,7 -?=490==0= $70,=0 <0.:9=4/0< >34= ;7,9 E 4> A477 -09014> 90423-:<3::/ 7709 04>.3 1:?9/ 49 >34= 80==,20 30.60/ -C  AAA    %070,=0    %    ! ' ! !   ---PAGE BREAK---   '     '     + +  + & /  , + /  , + + /  + ( (     2 / +   ( /  + + ( + + &   0 % / +  ( ( 1  + + % +   + ( + + / +20! +  ' ,  + ( + ' ,           %    ! ' ! !   ---PAGE BREAK---    & *    & &    /   . 73D AG@5;> (7?47DE 3@6 -F388 % 3? 3@ 7DD;FA D7E;67@F % >;H7 A@>K 3 4>A5= 3I3K 8DA? I:7D7 F:7 67H7>AB?7@F :3BB7@ "AD F:7 B3EF K73DE % :3H7 @AF AI@76 3 53D 3@6 97F 3DAG@6 4K 4;=7 I3>=;@9 AD BG4>;5 FD3@E;F GD;@9 ?G5: A8 F:3F F;?7 % F3G9:F 3F >A53> 5A??G@;FK 5A>>797E % E77 ?3@K H7DK 9AA6 3@6 @77676 ;?BDAH7?7@FE F:7 +34>A B>3@ @7I 9D77@7D EFD77FE ?AD7 AB7@ BG4>;5 EB357E 3@6 3@ 7?B:3E;E A@ I3>=;@9 3@6 BG4>;5 FD3@E;F 73E;7D 3@6 ?AD7 3557EE;4>7 8AD 7H7DKA@7 % 3? @AF ABBAE76 FA F:7E7 B3DFE A8 F:7 B>3@ % 877> F:7K IAG>6 47 7@H;DA@?7@F3>>K EAG@6 3@6 9D73F 7@:3@57?7@FE FA F:7 B7AB>7 A8 7DD;FA % 9D7I GB 38F7D 11 A@ F:7 @73D I7EF E;67 A8 :;539A 5>AE7 FA F:7 'AAB % >;H76 F:DAG9: F:7 5A@EFDG5F;A@ A8 :;539AE 7JBD7EEI3KE8D77I3KE F:7 5A@EFDG5F;A@ A8 3 ?37 53?BGE 3@6 A8 ?3@K @7I D;E7 4G;>6;@9E ?3@K A8 F:7? BDA<75FE 8AD >AI ;@5A?7 B7AB>7 F:7 BDA57EE I:A>7 @7;9:4AD:AA6E ;@5>G6;@9 F:7 A@7 I:;5: % >;H76 I7D7 67EFDAK76 AD FAD@ 3B3DF 7H7@ F:AG9: F:7 D7E;67@FE F:AE7 @7;9:4AD:AA6E AD93@;L76 ABBAE;F;A@ FA F:7E7 5:3@97E >3D97EF BG4>;5 :AGE;@9 BDA<75F 3F F:3F F;?7 F:7 ,A47DF .3K>AD $A?7E I3E 5A@EFDG5F76 :;539A ,3F:7D F:3@ ;@5D73E7 67@E;FK :;539A F:;E 67H7>AB?7@F 7@676 GB D76G5;@9 F:7 67@E;FK A8 F:7 5;FK -;@57 F:7 7@6 A8 1AD>6 13D F:7 BABG>3F;A@ A8 :;539A :3E 675>;@76 8DA? 34AGF   FA   753GE7 F:7K I7D7 @AF 8AG@6 FA 47 8;F 8AD :G?3@ :34;F3F;A@ F:7 D;E7 BDA<75FE :3H7 477@ FAD@ 6AI@ 3@6 D7B>3576 I;F: >AI D;E7 :AGE;@9 GD43@ 83D?E 3@6 E7DH;57E 8AD D7E;67@FE $7D7E I:3F :3BB7@76 :;539A FA A@7 A8 F:7E7 BDA<75FE 34D;@; #D77@ :FFBIII @45@7IE 5A?@7IEAF:7D;@83?AGE 5:;539A :AGE;@9 BDA<75F D74AD@ 8 1:3F >AA=E BDA9D7EE FA63K 8ADFK AD 8;8FK K73DE 8DA? @AI ?;9:F @AF >AA= BDA9D7EE 3F 1:A 47@78;F 3@6 I:A B3K F:7 5AEF 8AD D;E7 67H7>AB?7@F >73D>K F:AE7 I:A ?3=7 ?A@7K 8DA? F:7 @7I 67H7>AB?7@F 47@78;F 67H7>AB7DE 3D5:;F75FE 5A@FD35FADE 3@6 F:7;D IAD=7DE 3@6 AI@7DE A8 F:7 @7I 67H7>AB?7@FE H3EF ?37 >;H7 AGFE;67 A8 7DD;FA I:;>7 F:AE7 I;F: F:7 677B7EF BA5=7FE >;H7 B>357E >3?A *D;@63 AD 7H7@ )7I 2AD= $A@9 &A@9 .A=KA AD 'A@6A@ 5GDD7@F D7E;67@FE 3@6 4GE;@7EE AI@7DE 473D F:7 G@;@F7@676 5AEFE A8 :;9:7D 67@E;FK ?AD7 67?3@6 8AD BA>;57 3@6 8;D7 E7DH;57E ?AD7 FD388;5 :;9:7D 5D;?7 3@6 :;9:7D D7@FE (3@K 4GE;@7EE7E 3@6 D7E;67@FE I:;5: 47 6D;H7@ AGF 4K F:7 67H7>AB?7@F AD :;9:7D D7@FE D3F;A@3>7 8AD F:;E 5:3@97 7GB:7?;EF;53>>K 53>>76 ?A67 E:;8F ;E @AF ?K H;7I ;@5ADD75F 17 6A @776 FA 47 ?AD7 E7@E;F;H7 FA AGD 7@H;DA@?7@F 3@6 IAD= 8AD 9D73F7D 7CG3>;FK 3@6 3 9D73F7D CG3>;FK A8 >;87 8AD 7H7DKA@7 $AI7H7D I:7@ 5A@E;67D;@9 EG5: 67H7>AB?7@F I7 @776 FA >AA= 5>AE7>K 3F I:3F 3D7 F:7 5AEFE A8 EG5: 67H7>AB?7@F FA F:7 B7AB>7 F:7 3D73 I:7D7 F:7 67H7>AB?7@F A55GD 3@6 6A AGD 47EF FA ?;F;93F7 F:7E7 -;@57D7>K 2AGDE +397  A8  A??7@FE-7 ---PAGE BREAK--- );5:A>3E #3>>ADA )A H;DGE 8AG@6 F:;E ?7EE397 :75=76 4K 0# III 3H9 5A? 07DE;A@   0;DGE 3F343E7 ,7>73E7 3F7 +397  A8  A??7@FE-7 ---PAGE BREAK--- # # ' *     # "   "  Infamous Chicago housing project reborn BY PHOTOBLOG A mother and child, residents of the Cabrini-Green public housing project in Chicago, play in a playground adjoining the project, May 28, 1981. Oct09 ---PAGE BREAK--- 49 34.,2: ?30 3:@>492 ?30 ,-=494 =009 7:B 49.:803:@>492 3423 =4>0 -@47/492> B4?3 84C0/ 49.:80 ?:B93:80>  49 34.,2: &0>4/09?> B,76 :90 :1 ?30 10B =08,49492 34.,2: :@>492 ,-=494 =009 3:@>492 -@47/492>   49 34.,2: (30 /:B9      # "   "  ---PAGE BREAK--- -@47/492> :9 ;=480 =0,7 ?30 .4?D :1 34.,2: B,9?> /:B9 =0/0A07:; 2=:B> 4?D :9    49 7749:4> 4?D 4> , 9:9 A09?@=0 :9 , :90 :1 7,9/ :9 ?30 0/20 :1 ?30 /:B9?:B9 :9.0 /:849,?0/ -D ?30 ,-=494 =009 3:@>492 .:8;70C (30 ?30 1,=8 4> 8,9D 3423 09/ , 90,=-D 8,=60? ?30 1=:8 ?30 1,=8   -@47/492> : / / 7 -@474747474747474747474747/4/4/4/4/4/4/4/4/4/4/492 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >4?4?4?4?4?4?4?4?4?4?4?4?4?4?4?4? : / / 7 / / 7 *     # "   "  ---PAGE BREAK--- (30 90B 49 34.,2: B30=0 ?30 1:=80= 3:@>492 ,-=494 =009 :9.0 (30 3:80 :1 B3,? :90 :1 ?30 9,?4:9F> .=480 =4//09 3:@>492 .:9?49@0> =0-4=?3 ?34> B00609/ B309 , :;09> :9 ?30 >4?0 :1 34.,2:F> ,-=494 =009 (30 90B :;09 B477 .:A0=   100? 08;7:D 8,9D  ;0:;70 49 ?30 .4?DF> '4/0 90423-:=3::/ 8:=0 ?30 G(30 =009H , 34.,2: :@>492 -@47? 49 :A0=  D0,=> 49 ? :1 8:=0 ?3,9 @94?> 49 3423 =4>0> :9 94.69,80> G(30 G(30 42 $H G :7/8490H ?30 -0.,80 3:80 2,92> A4:709.0 ;:A0=?D 34.,2: ;:74.0 :114.0=> B0=0 64770/ 49 ,-=494 =009 49  49 ,  D0,= -:DF> /0,?3 -D , -@770? 2,490/ 9,?4:9,7 30,/7490> 9 ?30 10/0=,7 0;,=?809? :1 :@>492 0A07:;809? :A0= 8,9,20809? :1 ?30 G(30 =009H -02,9 /08:74>3492 -@47/492> 8,60 B,D 90B /0A07:;809? (30 :1 ?30 3423 =4>0>      # "   "  ---PAGE BREAK--- %=4A,.D %:74.D I (0=8> :1 '0=A4.0 '4?0 /A0=?4>0 J     =,E0/ D0,=> B4?3 90B ?:B93:80> =0?,47 I 49.7@/492 ?30 I ?,6492 ?304= ;7,.0 +A %*+885* 274;      87C< (1A 8<5.A 885 (8:<1 &;270  *25A $8,2*5 %8  * 87<1  2<<5. 78?7 %8 8?7 8:<0*0.  86.8?7.:; *A 7 * ?*4.7270 230/   ;8   =,E0/ =,E0/ B *     # "   "  ---PAGE BREAK--- Cheryl Morse From: Sent: To: Subject: Nicholas Galloro <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Monday, September 15, 2014 11:33 AM Council members; Melanie Mintz; New San Pablo Ave. Development Plan Dear Council Members and Staff: I am an El Cerrito resident. I live only a block away from where the development will happen. For the past 30 years, I have not owned a car and get around by bike, walking or public transit. During much of that time, I taught at local community colleges. I see many very good and needed improvements in the San Pablo plan: new, greener streets, more open, public spaces, and an emphasis on making walking, biking, and public transit easier and more accessible for everyone. I am not opposed to these patis of the plan. I feel they would all be environmentally sound and great enhancements to the people of El-Cenito. I grew up after WW II on the near-west side of Chicago, close to the Loop. I lived through the construction of Chicago's expressways/freeways, the construction of a major university in my neighborhood (The University of Illinois Chicago Circle campus), and of many new high-rise buildings, many of them, "projects" for low-income people. In the process, whole neighborhoods (including the one in which I lived) were destroyed or torn apati even though the residents in those neighborhoods organized in opposition to these changes. The largest public housing project, at that time, in the US, Robert Taylor Homes was constructed in Chicago. Rather than increase density in Chicago, all this development ended up reducing the density of the city. Since the end of World War II, the population of Chicago has declined 15% from about 3.2 million to 2.7 million. Because they were not found to be fit for human habitation, the high-rise "projects" have been torn down and replaced with low-rise housing, urban farms, and services for residents. Here's what happened in Chicago to one of these projects, Cabrini-Green: http:/ /www.n bcnews.com/news/other/infamous-chicago-housing-project-reborn-f8C 11362073 What looks like progress today, forty or fifty years from now might not look like progress at all. Who will benefit and who will pay the cost for high-rise development? Clearly, those who will make money from the new development will benefit: developers, architects, contractors and their workers, and owners of the new developments. The vast majority of these people will live outside of El Cerrito while those with the deepest pockets will live in places like Alamo, Orinda, or even New York, Hong Kong, Tokyo, or London. The current residents and business owners will bear the unintended costs of higher density: more demand for police and fire services; more traffic, higher crime, and higher rents. Many businesses and residents which will be driven out by the development or higher rents. The rationale for this change, euphemistically called "mode shift" is not, in my view, inconect. We do need to be more sensitive to our environment, and work for greater equality and a greater quality of life for everyone. However, when considering such development, we need to look closely at what are the costs of such development to the people living in the area where the development will occur and do our best to mitigate these. 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- Sincerely Yours, Nicholas Galloro 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- Melanie Mintz, Planning Director EL CERRITO CITY COUNCIL 10890 San Pablo A venue El Cerrito CA 94530 FOR IMMEDIATE ATTENTION OF PLANNING & CITY COUNCIL September 9, 2014 RE: RESIDENT OPPOSITION TO THE SAN PABLO DEVELOPMENT PLAN Please see that the City Council/Planning personnel receive these comments in opposition to the proposed San Pablo Development Plan: 1. It is out of phase with surrounding neighborhood buildings and way too high. This plan is guaranteed to negatively impact REAL ESTATE PROPERTY VALUES for homeowners in the Richmond Annex area. You do not have the right to assault an already-stressed population like this. There is already a glut of empty commercial and residential buildings in this area. Do not build more! 2. Tall buildings always create more shadows and more wind-gusts in an area already annoyingly windy. Tall buildings contribute a sense of alienation and incite depression and aggression in cities. We do not need more tall buildings in this area. 3. The congestion on San Pablo is already aggravating as far as traffic and inadequate parking. 4. A building for low-income ("affordable") housing is already in the process of being built near the CVS/Marshall area. WHY does E. C. keep building more housing and retail shops that stand EMPTY? San Pablo is full of empty buildings already and does not need more housing or retail buildings to be constructed! What we need are some SHOPS and RETAIL STORES, like grocery shopping and clothing stores. In recent years, this area and El Cerrito in general has lost the following: *Target *Dollar Store *OSH hardware/nursery *DuJ our Florist *many other retail shops/businesses Why isn't El Cerrito focusing on b1inging retailers into CURRENT BUILDINGS THAT ARE EMPTY, instead of trying to build MORE to make life unpleasant and depress real estate values? 5. San Pablo is NOT Solano Avenue or Piedmont Avenue-and never will be! It is a noisy, congested, UNFRIENDLY place that will become worse under this ridiculous scheme to put up high-rise buildings and a lot of obstructions to smooth-flowing traffic. Do not try to "gentrify'' this area, to the deh·iment of existing homeowners and businesses. 6. Nobody walks on S.P. Avenue if they can avoid it. These plans will make life even worse for everyone who has to drive or walk in the area--or wait for a bus. The parking situation on and near San Pablo A venue is already stressed, and this plan will inevitably impact Richmond Annex ---PAGE BREAK--- neighborhoods with overflow parking. Strangers who do not belong in our residential area will be seeking parking, increasing traffic and possible CRIME in our area. Do not subject Richmond homeowners to this additional stress! 7. The idea of reducing speed to 25 mph on San Pablo and creating all kinds of obstructions like bike lanes, bus platforms, and "super sharrows" is asking for a nightmare. WHO comes up with this nonsense?! 8. While we're on the topic of this area, whoever is determining the length of street-light-changing needs to CHANGE how long the light at the comer ofSP and Manila stays RED. In case you are not aware of it, this light is ungodly slow, and people who have to sit there in the left-tum lane, to tum onto Bayview, risk SKIN CANCER from the sun pouring onto their faces while waiting for the light to change. Don't be surprised if the City is named in lawsuits because of this. We and others are already fmding "growths" on our skin/faces/arms because of this prolonged exposure to the sun while waiting for that slow light to change. Please adjust the speed with which the light changes at that comer. On a related matter concerning San Pablo and El Cerrito's poor planning, WHY are you constantly having that traffic-cluttering "OFF THE GRID" in the busiest intersection in town? Will you continue this nonsense if all this proposed development occurs? This is insane. 'Why isn't a special event like that, guaranteed to clog traffic, held at the Plaza shopping center or even the DMV Parking lot? Instead, you inconvenience and annoy commuters and people trying to enter the Plaza by blocking traffic. Emergency vehicles are blocked from a speedy pass-through because of such obstructions on our main thoroughfare through town. Utterly ridiculous. It is time for El Cerrito to stop kowtowing to developers at the expense of people who live and work in the area. This entire development plan is ill conceived and should be scrapped. El Cerrito needs to focus on bringing retailers, groceries and clothing stores into the north part of town, near the Bart station, without all this additional construction. Just USE the buildings presently standing empty. And please stop trying to force residents onto bicycles, which is a whole other absurdity that needs to be addressed elsewhere. Cars are here to stay; deal with it! Thank you for taking time to read and consider these remarks. Sincerely, \-\Gjzt~Lt.t~Q__ Mrs. Michael Gasicen·~ . · Richmond Annex Homeowner/Resident Mailing Address: El Cerrito CA 94530 ---PAGE BREAK--- =4A  -8?7:<0 "):14A6  4 $4)6616/ $)*47 $4)6 $)*47 4 )5 ?:1<16/ <7 A7= <7 7..1+1)44A 7887;- 7. $)*47 $4)6 57>-, <7 4 ) 41<<4- ) "):14A6 1>1+ 41>-, 616- 16 ) 6-1/0*7:077, ?1<0 01/0:1;- *=14,16/; 16 #)34)6, &07=/0 41>-, ) 0)4. *47+3 7. 6-1/0*7:077, 5-,1=5 $1-,576< 7. 7. 16 #)34)6, 6-1/0*7:077, 8):316/ 1. 67< 1587;;1*4- ?01+0 8):316/ ) +76;1,-:)<176 +077;16/ <7 ?1<0 ?07 5=;1+ 8:1>)<-4A 7. 075- 671;- 4->-4 .:75  07=:; ) 6 616- ) ;16/4- 9=1-< 61/0< 075- 16 #)34)6, 47;< 7. ,744):; ?7:<0 7. *:73-6 16<7 7: ) <7<)4 7. <15-; ;<74-6 -16/ ;7 +47;- <7 ) 67? <7 76- *47+3 )6 +:1516)4; ?07 +7=4, 9=1+34A ) 47+3 7:/)61B)<176 1< 6-):4A 1587;;1*4- 16>74>-, 6-1/0*7:; <7 4773 7<0-: ?0-6 6-1/0*7:077, ;7 .=44 7. 8-784- 7: +7=4, <7 367? +07;- <7 41>- 16 4 ;8-+1.1+)44A 1< ) 57:- D6-1/0*7:077,E <7 1< '0-6 <74, 075- *7<0 <74, ?7=4, ,:78 7. 47?-: +:15- 16 4 *:16/16/ +7584-@-; <7 $)*47 ?144 764A 671;- +:15- ---PAGE BREAK--- )4;7 *13- 4)6-; 76 $)*47 1; <7<)44A .161;0-, #0476- *13- 8:7*4-5 <7 +A+41;16/ <7 $)*47 ?144 5)3- )6 5),,-616/ 8:7*4-5 5=+0 <016/ ?0-6 16 4 .16)44A <7 .:75 76 &07=/0 116/ ;7 5)6A ?1<07=< <0-5 <07=/0< 7. ) *=14,16/ /716/ 16 *-016, 07=;- ,--84A  74, ?1<0 8);;16/ +)=<176 16 84)6; 4 5)A 84-);16/ ) <7 *:16/ 57:- 576-A 16<7 4 A7= 5)A =8 =;16/ <7 8)A 57:- 8741+-5-6 <7 ?1<0 <7 ;74>- 8):316/ 8:7*4-5; A7= 5)A ) 7. /77, ;741, 6-1/0*7:; 4-)>16/ 4 16 7. ) +755=615XfsUfgqtF{j3        IjfsMj~jslf u36 ---PAGE BREAK---   IjfsMj~jslf <5<29>>288:8 IjfsMj~jslf u37 ---PAGE BREAK--- July 20, 2014 Margaret Planning Manager San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan 1 0890 San Pablo Ave. El Cerrito, CA 94530 Dear Ms. We recently moved to El Cerrito and have been impressed with the neighborhoods, city services, and public transportation. I often walk to and along San Pablo Avenue, as well as drive the Avenue regularly. Unfortunately I was not here for previous community workshops and meetings on the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan so my comments are based on reading the various public documents. I agree with the concept of higher density multi-use buildings along San Pablo, with residential units above and commercial on the ground floor. I also agree with the goal of encouraging the use of transit facilities and walking. However, there are two points that I feel are misguided and based on faulty or unsupported premises. The Plan clearly intends to reduce "reliance on the private automobile" [Goal E in the Form Based Code and elsewhere] by deliberately making driving and parking in and through El Cerrito more difficult. Many places [Transect Zones, TOHIMU, TOMIMU, Parking Adjustments (2.05.09.05), Complete Streets, Shift Mode, etc.] tout pedestrians, transit users, and especially bicyclists while reducing parking requirements, narrowing traffic lanes, and making driving more crowded and difficult. The assumption, which is not documented as far as I can find, is that by making driving more inconvenient, parking more difficult, traffic problems more aggravating, and drive-times slower, drivers will decide to give up their cars and use bicycles and public transportation. People who believe this may never have driven San Pablo Avenue, at least the Plan seems to be oblivious to the reality of living in the Bay Area. Where is the evidence that inconvenient driving convinces people to give up their cars? Have you personally, anyone on the City Council, anyone in your family, anyone you know, or any of the Planning Consultants exchanged a car for a bicycle? There are some mixed- usc residential/commercial buildings along San Pablo Avenue. Do any of those residents not have one or more cars but instead use bicycles? Do traffic planners expect the population of the Bay Area to shrink? Cars in the future may be smaller and more energy effi.cient, but is there any evidence that there will be fewer cars, or will there be more cars on the roads in the future than now? Anyone who suggests encouraging bicyclists to use San Pablo Avenue has never walked/driven the Avenue and seen what drivers have to contend with, much less bicyclists. Delive1y tJucks regularly block one of the travel lanes to offload goods. Will such deliveries be banned by the Plan? The Plan states that redesign will maintain existing curbs, meaning that the Avenue will be the same width then as now. That means buses, regardless of the type of stop, will be blocking the same traffic lanes then as now because the street will be the same width. Nanowing the traffic lanes will simply make driving more dangerous for pedestrians and other drivers. Bicyclists are either traveling to work (I suspect these numbers are very low), to a transit stop (BART, bus stop), or to some retail location. In any case, there is no need to encourage bicycle traffic on San Pablo. Transit stops and retail locations are easily reached by the Oholone Greenway east of San Pablo and Carson which arc only one to a few blocks away from retail areas and the Greenway connects directly to BART. The Plan 40 "Uptown San Pablo Avenue"] ignores this reality and without any supporting evidence justifies bicycles on SPA by stating: "These bicycle facilities are provided because the corridor functions as a main SPA Plan comments Dean Heyenga p. 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- street, with destinations all along the corridor; and more bicycle trips will originate on the corridor and take place entirely on San Pablo Avenue. While the Oholone Greenway parallels the corridor, it does not serve these local-area, shorter trips." These statements are simply not true but are typical Consultant-speak to justify a pre- determined goal without data to support it. In short, San Pablo Avenue is a major arterial which conducts traffic to and through El Cerrito. I have driven the Avenue when traffic was crawling along at a service level (in my opinion) because it took four traffic signal cycles to get from Sacramento through Central Ave. southbound. This Plan will not " deepen a sense of place and community identity, attract private investment, strengthen partnerships, enhance the public realm" as it intends. I appreciate the many hours and thousands of dollars spent creating this plan. There are many creative and positive elements in it. However, reducing parking requirements and encouraging bicycles on San Pablo Avenue may be "trendy planning concepts" but they ignore reality and will create dangerous and unattractive conditions along the Avenue. Sincerely, Dean Hcyenga El Cerrito, CA 94530 SPA Plan comments Dean Heyenga p.2 ---PAGE BREAK---   )       ) ' - 7 .38>  &2 2= 1*88*6 4+ 91=  .3  :*-*2*381= 84  &2 79'2.88.3, 2= 1*88*6 84 =49 &7 & 2&88*6 4+ 59'1.( 6*(46) +46 .3(197.43 .3 493(.1 8-.7 2&88*6 $-&30 =49 #8&31*=  955   4 :.697 +493) .3 8-.7 2*77&,*  (42 %*67.43  %.697      4+     !1&37 !1&3 422*387 ---PAGE BREAK--- July 21, 2014 Dear Ms. I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed development plan (SPASP) that sets forth major changes that would directly impact the quality of life in my neighborhood. I am a long-time resident of Panama Avenue in the Richmond Annex. We enjoy streets that are currently not used as alternate routes for the major arteries of traffic in the area. The SPASP plan would threaten this benefit that we currently have. We enjoy relatively clean air and are not surrounded by an urban landscape of highrises that ultimately makes the streets unsafe and encourages crime. And the proposed SPASP plan clearly threatens our quality of life in this regard. The SPASP project proposes changes that would directly impact the quality of life in Richmond Annex. Urbanization of San Pablo Avenue throughout El Cerrito is an unwelcome and incorrect approach to development in this area. We enjoy a relatively high quality of life in Richmond Annex with views of the El Cerrito and surrounding hills. We value our views of the El Cerrito, Albany, and Berkeley hills, and we vehemently object to the proposed 5 and 6 storied buildings under consideration. If this is allowed, the entire historical character of our neighborhood will be lost, as well as our views. I object to the use of form-based codes that provide a quick and dirty development without any regard for the historical characteristics of our area as well as complete disregard for the aesthetics of the space and (quality of life) of residents. I support historical preservation of the area between Central and Fairmount and all areas that border Richmond Annex. I am especially concerned about the proposed development because it creates a high-density zone that cannot be supported by current roads: Central Avenue is an already overwhelmed and chaotic street to the freeway that cannot support the amount of traffic currently found there. It is also dangerous because of the high density: cars, people, bikes, buses, all sharing a very limited public road and limited space. This plan is for the quick buck of the developers and has nothing to offer the current residents. The SPASP is short-sighted and should be stopped. This plan will produce an over-built, over-developed area that will forever change the character of the Richmond Annex. Stop these developers. I'm sure they do not live here. Save the Annex. Sincerely, Stanley Jupp 5619 Panama Ave Richmond Annex, CA 94804 ---PAGE BREAK---   " & "    '       2 6B * 8/ 9>+52, 27,5><287 27 2=B 8>7,25 &1*74<        5     6*25 912529#  ,86  ! %      2 *6 *7 5 <27,. *6 1*?270 /8558@270 @2=1  = 2< 87. 8/ 27 5 =8 =8  / 2< 78 95*77270 @2=1 /58@ 8/ @2=1 $2,1687- 5 @255 0;2- 58,4 ->;270 ,866>=270 18>;< 2= 2< 78@ #*+58 5262= /;86 =8 691 *--270 +24. #*+58 2< * 1.*?B 9;898<.- 58@.; +24. 5*7. 78= 6*4. @1.7 ,8698>7- @2=1 8/ 9*;4270 *5870 #*+58 @2=1 27 +>25-27 95*7=.; 9*;4270 =8 9*;4 27 '72?.;<2=B *2;687= 088- .A*695.< 95*7=.; 87 9*;4270 5*7. 9*;4270 6*4. 5884< "1587. 2< * 088- +24. 5*7. *5870 #*+58  @1B 6*4. *78=1.; 5*7.< =8 8/ #*+58  <86. .69=B /;87= 5*7- 27 5 7 =8 2=B 27,86. <18>5-7C= ,2=B @8;4270 87 @12,1 78 9;8+5.6 ;201= 78@ * 8/ 2=B ,86. 08 524. 6. 2< <=*B270 * 5870 =26. 870 269*,= 2< 6B 6*27 ,87,.;7        5     6*25 912529#  ,86 5*142 3)*2 #7    !*142         ---PAGE BREAK--- Carol Langhauser El Cerrito, CA September 8, 2014 El Cerrito City Council 1 0890 San Pablo Avenue El Cerrito, CA 94530 DearCoun~IMembern, I have attended two meetings of the Planning Commission, July 16 and September 4, 2014. At both meetings the public comments were overwhelmingly negative. However, the Commission members had already made up their minds and barely acknowledged our concerns. The comments made by two commissioners at the July 161h meeting were telling, but not helpful: Commissioner Tim Pine: "Cars are a terrible misuse of space. We pave over farmland, pave over park land for them to sit unused 10 hours a day, dripping pollutants." Commissioner Michael lswalt seconded Pine's sentiments and said that the city needs to recognize that the Bay Area is "in the middle of a modal shift toward (public) transportation." I have the following major concerns: 1) The lack of parking for residents living around the two BART stations has spilled over to the neighboring streets. This will be exasperated by allowing variances for fewer parking slots for high density buildings along San Pablo Avenue and the Ohlone Pathway. Both sides of San Pablo are negatively impacted. 2) The heights of these high density building will allow variances for up to 40 and sometimes as high as 80 feet!! This will impact many residents' quality of life by restricting their views and Bay breezes. (EI Cerrito's motto is "City with a View" and the plaque in the Coun~l Chambers show a view of the Golden Gate. The height variances will change these.) 3) When traffic is backed up on Hwy 80, drivers move to Hwy 123 (San Pablo Avenue). Since traffic has increased, more drivers have found Richmond Street which is now backed up for blocks at commute time. This will only get worse. 4) There are two AC Transit bus lines: The #7 bus which only runs along the Arlington and ends in Berkeley. The other lines only run along San Pablo to the BART stations. The Terrace bus line was eliminated years ago. There is no longer any public transportation from the middle of El Cerrito to shopping areas. 5) The demographics of El Cerrito indicate that 22.4% of the population is over 65! We aren't going to ride bicycles or skateboards down Terrace or Moeser. And, taking public transportation after shopping for groceries or painting supplies or. is just out of the question. Eliminating parking will send us to other cities. 6) The following data shows El Cerrito's "means of transportation to work" (Source: US Census Bureau, 2010-2012 American Community Survey) ---PAGE BREAK--- 53.1% drive alone 9.0% carpool 22.4% public transportation 8.9% work at home 6.6% commute by taxicab, bicycle, walked or other means. This indicates that bicycles are a very small percentage of the El Cerrito commuters. We are catering to a minority of our population. Bicyclists have the option of the Ohlone Pathway which is safer than riding on Hwy 123. Richmond Street also has bicycle lanes. What other city has bicycle lanes on San Pablo Avenue? 7) El Cerrito's part of San Pablo runs for about 2.5 miles. How will drivers coming from the Cities of Richmond and Albany adjust to narrower lanes; a lower speed and a different street configuration of bus stops and bicycle pathways? My guess is we'll see more accidents and more cars moving to Richmond Street. 8) Who will maintain the trees and greenery along San Pablo? The merchants?? The City can't maintain the Right of Ways now. Who will pay for the high density buildings' need for more utilities, including sewers? How will we justify the increase in water use with each building? 9) We say we want to encourage new businesses to come to El Cerrito. But what business would want to locate here with little parking, the looming possibility of an increase in sales tax and signage restrictions? These factors are unattractive and counterproductive to both existing and potential businesses as demonstrated by the empty buildings and shops along San Pablo. 10) Finally, the longtime residents living near Richmond and Elm Streets have seen their quiet homes heavily impacted by BART since the 1970's. Many lost their homes. They've seen their streets overtaken by commuters. If this plan goes through, it will get worse. A 40 to 80 foot monolith will ruin what views they have of the sunsets. The value of their houses will decrease. The City continues to ignore their plight. Is this an indication of what the Planning Commission calls a "sense of place?" I urge you to reject the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan. O:J/~ Carol Langhauser ---PAGE BREAK--- Sept.11 , 2014 Attn: El Cerrito City Council Re: Proposed San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan We find serious flaws in this current proposal for the long range overhaul of San Pablo Avenue. Specifically, high density housing combined with reduced parking availability is a major problem in a city with the current very limited public transportation. Until frequent and convenient east-west buses are accessible to hill residents (presently,, there is none), we must use cars for all our transportation. Parking along the San Pablo corridor is already a problem for business and attracting new businesses will be very difficult with further reductions. The proposed plan must include some major public parking structures. Furthermore, we are not a "compact" city. Our business areas are not clustered with the exception of the Plaza, and, therefore, we are forced to drive from location to location to do several errands efficiently. Having San Pablo as available as possible for cars is really essential to this. For safety, parallel streets would best be used for proposed bike lanes. We realize this is an attempt to reduce traffic in our city but realistically we do not see how our topography allows this. · riido!t 50 year!±!~ 7}J, dkf El Cerrito ---PAGE BREAK---           5 -2 7.30 +$22$0 2. 13!,(22$# 1 , 22$0 (27 / ' 1 #7 , 3/ (21 2'$0$1 0$ 50(2(-& 2'(1  2. 1. %2$0 2.  0$ 2' 2 0&3,$-21 ' 4$ , !7 $6/0$11(-& ,7 + 4($5 (1 2. 4($5 2.5 0#1 #$-1(27 "(27 0$ 1 % 5(2' (2 (1 #$120.71 "(27 $6 + 2.  5 7 #7 -1 2' 2 /0(4 2$ 1/ (1 0(4 2$ 2'0$ 0# 5 -2 2. 0(1$ / 02,$-2 '.31$1 2. ' 4$ 5(2-$11$# #$1203"2(.- 2 5 1 5(2' 07 2'$(0 +(4$1 ' 4$ 12(++ 2' 2 #$1203"2(.- 1 5$ .30 5..#1 0 $4$0 0&3$1 2' 2 0$ #$1203"2(4$  5(2' -%.023- 2$+7 2. 5.0* .0 (1 4$0 + 2 2'(1 )3-"230$ 20 -1/.02 !7 !31 .30 0$ (1 1203"230$ 7.3 2. 2'(1 1$ #$-1(27   )312 0# !.32 2'(1 4.2$  5 -2 7.3 2. 4.2$  , - -  ' 4$ 2. 1' 0$ (1 - #$1203"2(.- !$22$0 1/$"21 .30  5 -2 2. 4$ 13"' 2. %3230$ 2(.-1 .301 203+7 0 6+253 (05/& 4*+3 $8  777#6)%0.   "+253       0(     ! ---PAGE BREAK--- David Mandel, M.L.A., A.S.L.A. El Cerrito, California 94530-2046 DRAFT SAN Jl A BLO A VENUE SPECIFIC PLAN My name is David Mandel. I am a semi-retired senior city planner, university-level landscape architecture teacher and practitioner, and licensed California C-27 landscape contractor. I comment on the proposed SP ASP both as a resident and as a planning professional: Parking: The San Pablo A venue Specific Plan Area includes in its goals to "Encourage alternative modes of transportation to the single occupancy vehicle" and create "more flexible parking requirements (lower minimums)" for new and re-development. The 1715 Elm Project's parking impacts may prove to be an indicator of El CeiTito parking and transpm1ation impacts along the San Pablo Avenue and BART corridors over the next few decades, but that project may be some time a-building. Regardless, we should proceed with vision, caution and wisdom. Wisdom comes in part from recalling history. Which confronts us with two difficult topics: first, the 1960s concept, Zero Population Growth (ZPG) - a self-explanatory proposal to stabilize Em1h 's ability to sustain itself; and, second, American nomadism: sociologists, plmmers, the media, the movies, and the AAA acknowledge that we Americans love to travel, to explore, to get away. We fell, and remain, in love with the car. Politicians and planners alike won't touch ZPG. Sooo, we MUST deal with three absolutes: a growing population who generally love to travel; an ever-present State of California Housing Element mandate to house our fair share of our ever-increasing numbers of drivers; and, the reality that most Americans want to achieve clean air and sustainability not by giving up our cars but by making them non-polluting, that is, electric, hydrogen fusion, steam, maglev, or gerbil and mbber-bm1ds Professional platmers have, for the past half centmy, been seeking parking and transportation solutions. We have embraced the transit village, which focuses dense housing and mixed use development near such major transpm1ation hubs as Del Norte BART, and which is some of the motivation behind the San Pablo A venue Specific Plan. Sure, we bike, we bike, we bus - but most of us get to our serious vacations m1d crucial events by car, SUV, or extra-cab pick-up. And no red-blooded Ame1icm1 will be legislated out of theirs. Any new development may house no drivers, some drivers, and some multi-vehicle drivers - but no-one ever talks specifically about where the air-conditioning repair-lady, the PG&E lineman, and Cousin Sm·ah and the kids wi II park their vans, trucks, m1d SUV s. A lack of accounting for real-world parking space needs would NOT be fair to the neighbors or we the people. The only relief to be gained from reduced parking requirements in new development projects will be in developers' bank accounts. Bicycle/Alternative Transport Routes: Referring to Figures 14 and 15 in Sections 104.02: Ecologically sane planning calls for densified urban planning to save om wild and resource lands. As more young folks produce more babies and densification increases, vehicular numbers ---PAGE BREAK--- will increase in cities. That means more inattentive double-parked drivers uncontrollable by our limited policing resources, more stopped delivery trucks, buses, and utility and emergency equipment in the right-hand traffic lane in both directions on State Highway 123, San Pablo Avenue. Rush-hour traffic is already too fast on San Pablo. It is irresponsible and noncompliant with government's most basic responsibility - public health and safety-- to imagine, let alone legislate, that we can place bicycle lanes on a highway already too dangerous for even cars, let alone motor scooters and bicycles. With how many dead cyclists are we ok, as we set out to legislate people out of their cars? Thank you. ---PAGE BREAK--- From: Mr. Oliver Nguyen, Homeowner 9/15/2014 779 Balra Drive El Cerrito, California 94530 Email: To: Melanie Mintz, Planning Director; Margaret Planning Manager El Cerrito City Hall 10890 San Pablo Avenue El Cerrito, CA 94530 RE: Comments on the Draft San Pablo Avenue specific Plan (SPASP) and related EIR Dear Melanie & Margaret: I would like this letter to be submitted as a matter of public record for inclusion in the city council packet regarding the proposed SPASP. I invested in a home in the El Cerrito hills in May, 2007. The mid-century home is valuable for the way it fits into the neighborhood, and for its exceptional view. I was originally attracted to El Cerrito because it was a beautiful town with modest commercial centers and historic charm. Its business areas meet the needs of El Cerrito’s desirable low-density residential neighborhoods without overwhelming the town with traffic attracted from elsewhere or from many high-rise apartment complexes within its city limits. In addition, a low skyline allows unobstructed and unmarred views of the Bay and of the hills from many parts of the town. While I am not in principle against revitalization and change, there are some aspects of the SPASP that I am afraid will have very negative consequences for the residents here and will erode the town’s attractiveness. In particular, my neighbors and myself do not want to see very tall, high density housing developed here, on multiple grounds; residential towers are not in keeping with the historic nature of El Cerrito, may mar views for many residents, and will create more traffic congestion with correlated noise and air pollution. We are also very concerned about traffic rerouting through residential streets and circulation problems that will likely result if the planned changes to speed limit, lane configuration, bus infrastructure and population density are adopted. We see no reason whatsoever for the El Cerrito side of the proposed development to be of higher density and height than the Richmond Annex Side. At issue in the planning document is the unreasonable size of developments that the plan seems to allow. According to the plan, we could be saddled with buildings 55 ft tall through some areas and as tall as 65 ft in others. If we must sacrifice quality of life to increased population density, in the interest of traffic, community, certainly the height should be no more than the 38 ft which has been planned in our ---PAGE BREAK--- neighboring communities of Berkeley and Albany, which have a similar footprint/profile to the character of El Cerrito - this should be sufficient. In addition, I fear there is not enough consideration given to views – either to the ability of the Richmond residents looking to the hills or El Cerrito residents, whose property have bay views, and whose property values are directly impacted by the views. High rises will severely depress the value of their real estate, while at the same time negatively impacting their quality of life in other areas. The setbacks to adjacent residential properties is not enough – these properties will be overshadowed, and their privacy severely impinged upon – the set back of “ zero” being allowed in some cases or only 5 ft in others seems unreasonable. The plan does not detail any real solution to balance large scale development, parking (or lack thereof) and how to get all the increased traffic around without causing gridlock. In using form-based code, it is important that the specifics of what we want San Pablo Ave to look like in its final form be reflected in this document. And, what we want to see is the character of our long- standing neighborhoods preserved. Thanks for your consideration, Oliver Nguyen ---PAGE BREAK--- 05'44' %058'452'.593'/2)53& "+69+3(+7   /49?   '4+9 (+2854  8:66579 '(25 2'4  5225< :6  8 /49?  8:66579 '(25 2'4  <'49 2 +77/95 95 ' ;/(7'49  ' 8+4/57  <'49 ' 3'/4 *5<495<4 9.'9 97'48/9 57/+49+* *+;+2563+49 3:29/8957> /4 89:*> 6'71/4- 2598 54 '(25  .56+ 95 357+ 7+8/*+49/'2 )533+7)/'2  <5:2* 2/1+ 95 +;+49:'22> 2/1+ 95 /4 ' 85  <5:2* 45 254-+7 95 ' #.'41 >5:7 *+6'793+49 ,57 >5:7 <571 54 9./8 62'4 5'44'  2 +77/95 6'7+49 7+8/*+49 5, 2 +77/95 8/4)+  5 ;/7:8 ,5:4* /4 9./8  $+78/54    $/7:8   %    ! ' ! !   ---PAGE BREAK--- 4 &if ( (J-Wyl~ r~ dod" ~ 1lu'" J J».14 ./AM 16 )L ~ ' ?JJL ~ Jl'frr ;-6Jt.J--, )l)JI-~fo ro jp jj}~ A~ff)~~ 1£ tVe-- tLN- ~ lUtrU-1.1 [t}Ju)> M.J ~ ~ 1;-W .J-uf'..W II-' rtJf.VJ, w.u ~ tl• ,DJ>-LL.iJ a~ ~ c.iJ1' tuUt .Jza.u/.w -:fby.e.-t-~~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

L AHF> L :MFHLIA>K> (G?K:LMKN ( ?HK HG> EBD> MA> GM JNBLIHGL> MBF> H? IHEB<> ?BK> :F;NE:G<> BG $E PHNE= A:M> MH MA>F =BO>KM>= :P:R ?KHF I:MKHEEBG@ MA> LMK>>ML :L MA>R GHP =H E>LL :O:BE:;E> PA>G NIHG ( =HG M P:GM MH HNK P:M>K L>P>K LMK>>M BG?K:LMKN HO>KLMK>LL>= >BMA>K .O>K;NBEM ?HK MA> +HM ;NLBG>LL>L LAHNE= GHM IK>LLBG@ BGMH K>LB=>GMB:E EHML >LMA>MBP ( M ;>EB>O> :GRHG> PHNE= >O>G K :EEHPBG@ ;NBE=BG@L AB@A>K MA:G  HG 2:G /:;EH >LI BGM>KFBG@E>= PBMA AHF>L :I:KMF>GM ;NBE=BG@L =H GHM >O>G K MABL !EH LNG ?KHF R:K=L MA> LMK>>M ?KHGM ;EHPL H? MA> H? MA> $E ABEEL ?HK 1BQ =P>EE>KL BL : AHKK>G=HNL 7HN GHM INM : O:EN> HG : @HH= OB>P MH LNGEB@AM ?HK IE:GML I>HIE> ;NM B? RHN BM PBEE EHP>K IKHI>KMR O:EN>L ?HK MAHL> FHLM =BK> 5 +4 MH A:O> : IE>:LBG@ OB>P : F:BG LMK>>M MA:G BM BL MH A:O> :GR I:KMBKLL PBMABG =BLM:G<> H? RHNK EBOBG@ KHHF L NL> LHF> L>GL> A>K> 7HN P:ED KB=> HK =KBO> MH : LMHK> HK HMA>K ;NLBG>LL ;NM PA>K> =H RHN K>MK>:M MH PA>G MA:M ;NLBG>LL /K>L>KO:MBHG 3A> HO>K:EE EHHD H? 2/ MA> G>>=L MH A:O> LHF> LBHG K>G<> 3HP>KBG@ ?HNK HK ?BO> ;NBE=BG@L A:O> GH IE:<> HG 2:G /:;EH PHNE= KNBG MA>  ! &     " ( " "  %  ---PAGE BREAK--- EHHD H? MA> :O>GN> -HM MH MA> @B:GM LA:=HPL MA:M PHNE= <:LM HG MA> HIIHLBM> LB=> H? MA> LMK>>M 6A>G RHN O> EBO>= BG L RHN =H GHM M:D> ?HK @K:GM>= >O>G HG> H? LNGEB@AM MA> P:KFMA BM ">GMK:E 6HKL> ":LMBG@ MA> ">GMK:E BG LA:=HP ;R ;NBE=BG@ NI HG >BMA>K LB=> H? BM PHNE= : FBLM:D> :L BG :L P>EE :L ?HK MA> BG:L>= MK:??B< I:KDBG@ IKH;E>FL RHN PHNE= :MBG@ 3A> MK:??B< EB@AM :M ">GMK:E BL :EK>:=R L>O>K:E EHG@ 3A>K> BL :ELH :EK>:=R : LAHKM:@> H? I:KDBG@ HG MA:M ;EH @H>KL :M MA> F: MA>K> %HKF %:LM MK:O>EHIF>GM IKHC>:OBG@ MA> IN;EB< BG MA> =NLM BL GH P:R MH =>LB@G IN;EB< EBOBG@ LI:<>L #>O>EHI>KL MA>BK ;:KL MH :< :M $5$17 LM>I BG :GR IHM>GMB:E IKHC>KM MABGD EHG@ A:K= :;HNM ?NMNK> H? :GR ;NBE=BG@ IKHC> @HH= L>GL> :M MABG@L ?KHF >O>KR :G@E> GHM CNLM LAHKM M>KF @:BG : >QMK: K>M:BE CH;L  2IHM #>O>EHIF>GM ;EHGM MHP>KL PHNE= BG>OBM:;ER FHK> MK:??B< HG 2/ BML>E? :L P>EE :L LB=> LMK>>ML :M I:KDBG@ :K>:L :M MA> (M L :EK>:=R : G@> @>MMBG@ : I:KDBG@ LI:<> :M 3K:=>K L +NKM:BG MBF>L H? MA> ( O> M:D>G MA> MBF> MH >GNF>K:M> KG > ?ER>K ( P:GM RHN MH K>F>F;>K MA:M =H>L GHM :NMHF:MB<:EER BFIKHO>F>GM MA:M LHF> IHLLB;ER F:GR K>LB=>GML KG>= :;HNM PA:M BL ;>BG@ IKHIHL>= BG :EM>KBG@ MA> K H? HNK GB<> EBMME> MHPG 6> =H GHM P:GM MH EHHD EBD> 6:EGNM "K>>D HK ?HK;B= MA> K>M:BE LMKBI H? $F>KROBEE> 6> EBO> A>K> P> EBD> MA> ?E:OHK H? MA> MHPG :L BM GHP LM:G=L =H GHM MA:M ;NBE=BG@ AB@A>K HK FHK> M> PBEE F:D> $E ;>MM>K HK FHK> AHF>R HK FHK> :MMK: 3A> K>M:BE ;NBE=BG@L MA:M GMER >QBLM LIKN<>= NI ;NLBG>LL BG O:<:GM LAHNE= 'HP>O>K >GLB=>GMB:E I>=>LMKB:G G>B@A;HKAHH=L PBMA HO>KLBS>= FNEMB NGBM ;NBE=BG@L BL GHM : L>GLB;E> P:R MH O>GM LIK:PE ( =HG M MABGD RHN EE ?BG= MHH F:GR I>HIE> PAH PHNE= EBD> MH MA:M M>KF :IIEB>= MH PA>K> 3'$7 EBO> ( :LD MA:M RHN ?: :;HO> G:F>= KGL >F;:KDBG@ HG :GR G>P BKK>O>KLB;E> =>O>EHIF>GML 3A:GD RHN 2BG<>K>ER )NEB> />K>BK: $E " -H OBKNL ?HNG= BG MABL ;R 5& PPP:O@E>:L>  ! &     " ( " "  %  ---PAGE BREAK---      " @>==8490=46<08;  +4?B4<14@  0B ) , >C=28; <4<14@A  >C=28;<4<14@A28 4; 24@@8B> 20 CA     40@ 8BG >C=28; &4<14@ % 0< 0??0;;43 0B B74 )01;> D4 0=3 B74 2>=B86C>CA AB@44BA ;B7>C67 % E0=B43 B> A?40: >CB 0B B74 <>AB @424=B ><<8AA8>= <44B8=6 % 383=B 544; @403G B> 4F?@4AA C67BA 0=3 703 B@>C1;4 >@60=8H8=6 B74< 8= 0 E0G B70B 2>C;3 14 740@3 ;B7>C67 % 70D4 ;8D43 8= 4@@8B> B74 ?0AB 5>C@ G40@A % 383 58=3 >CB 01>CB B78A C=B8; @424=B;G E74= 0 =48671>@ B>;3 <4 01>CB 8B .7G 0@4=B B74 @4A834=BA 0=3 A<0;; 1CA8=4AA >E=4@A 8= B74 05542B43 0@40 @4248D8=6 5;G4@A =>B85G8=6 B74< >5 B74 <44B8=6A E74@4 B78A 8A 148=6 38A2CAA43 0=3 D>B43 E8B7 B74 10A82 540BC@4A >5 B74 ?@4A4=B43 2;40@;G *424=B;G % 0BB4=343 B74 2>C=28; <44B8=6 E74@4 B74 +B@44B 4D4;>?<4=B E0A 0??@>D43 % 383=B 0=GB78=6 01>CB B78A C=B8; % 0BB4=343 B70B 2>C=28; <44B8=6 54E 30GA 06> % 0 C? +B@44B B> D84E B74 B70B 8A 6>8=6 B> 14 34D4;>?43 B74@4 0=3 A0E B74 ?>B4=B80; >?4=8=6 C? 0=3 E834=8=6 B74 AB@40< 0=3 7>E B70B E>C;3 4=70=24 B74 0@40 0=3 B74 &G E0;: <4 ?0AB <0=G BE> 0=3 B7@44 AB>@G 0?0@B<4=B 1C8;38=6A B70B 58B 8= E8B7 B74 =48671>@7>>3 8= AC27 0 E0G 0A B> 14 10@4;G =>B82401;4 E70B B74G 0@4 7867 34=A8BG 7>CA8=6 ,74 2>C=28;A >5 B74 +B@44B 8= B74 E0G B74 34D4;>?4@ E8B7>CB >?4=8=6 C? B74 2@44: 0=3 A20;8=6 3>E= B74 34D4;>?<4=B 344?;G 38A0??>8=B43 <4 1>CB B> ?4@24=B >5 4@@8B> 8A H>=43 *4A834=B80; +8=6;4 "0<8;G E78;4 B74 0@40 E74@4 B74 ,@0=A8B (@84=B43 $867 4=A8BG 7>CA8=6 8A B> 14 1C8;B 8A H>=43 2><<4@280; *4A834=B80; &C;B8?;4 "0<8;G E7827 8A E7G B74@4 0@4 A> <0=G 0?0@B<4=B 1C8;38=6A 8= B78A 0@40 ,74 =4E E8;; <0:4 B78A 0@40 B74 <>AB 34=A4;G ?>?C;0B43 8= 4@@8B> 4D4= 34=A4;G ?>?C;0B43 ,74 E7>;4 ?78;>A>?7G >5 C@10= 34D4;>?<4=B B70B 8A 14BB4@ 1CB B74 5>;:A 8= B74 5;0B;0=3A 0=3 E>@:8=6 2;0AA =48671>@7>>3A 8A 5;0E43 ,74@4 8A @4=B 8= 4@@8B> B74@45>@4 B74 =4E 2>=3>A @4=B0;A 20= 14 4FB@4<4;G 4F?4=A8D4 ,74G E8;; <>AB ;8:4;G 7>CA4 A8=6;4A 0=3 2>C?;4A E8B7>CB 278;3@4= 0A 70A 144= B74 20A4 8= 28B84A ;8:4 "@0=28A2> 0=3 4@:4;4G E74@4 @4A834=B80; 1C8;38=6A >5 0B ;40AB  AB>@84A 70D4 144= 1C8;B 0338=6 B> B74 50<8;G 0B<>A?74@4 74@4 &0=G >5 B74A4 5>;:A E8;; <>D4 >=24 B74G AB0@B 50<8;84A *4B08; @4=BA E8;; @8A4 0=3 <0=G >5 B74 A<0;; 1CA8=4AA4A 0;>=6 )01;> D4 0=3 8= >B74@ ?0@BA >5 B74 34D4;>?<4=B 0@40 E8;; 38A0??40@ 0=3 1CA8=4AA >E=4@A <0G ;>A4 B748@ ;8D4;G7>>3A ,74@4 8A 6C0@0=B44 B70B 1CA8=4AA4A E8;; 5;>C@8A7 8= B74 @434D4;>?43 H>=4 B70B E4;; ?0G8=6 9>1A 85 0=G E8;; 14 2@40B43 ,74 8340 B70B E8;; E0;: 182G2;4 0=3 CA4 )064  >5   58;4  ><<4=BA +4 ---PAGE BREAK--- ?C1;82 B@0=A8B 8A 0 7>?4 0 502B ;8D8=6 8= B74 H>=4 E8;; AB8;; 27>>A4 B> 3@8D4 @0B74@ B70= E0;: @834 B748@ 18:4A 0=3 <0=G 0@4 38A01;43 B> 18:4 E0;: 0=G 38AB0=24 A> E70B E4 =443 B> 0B 0@4 B@0=A8B A7CBB;4A B> 0=3 0=3 A7>??8=6 4A?4280;;G B74 4;34@;G 0=3 B7>A4 E7> 20=B E0;: 18:4 );40A4 2>=A834@ 0 B70B A20;4A 3>E= B74 ;4D4; >5 34D4;>?<4=B 2@40B4A 7>CA8=6 50<8;84A B70B 4=AC@4A A86=85820=B 2><?<4=B 0=3 74;?A B> ?@4A4@D4 B74 4F8AB8=6 A<0;; 1CA8=4AA4A 8= B74 0@40 +8=24@4;G />C@A @>==8490=46<08; D8@CA 5>C=3 8= B78A <4AA064 742:43 1G EEE 0D6  -8@CA 0B010A4 *4;40A4 0B4 D8@CA 5>C=3 8= B78A <4AA064 742:43 1G EEE 0D6  -8@CA 0B010A4 *4;40A4 0B4 )064  >5   58;4  ><<4=BA +4 ---PAGE BREAK---  3       1 * $   *  *  0,  $F<16 %73/9 =BA /A A63 ?313?3@@ ;F A6=B56A@ 6/2 A?=B0:3 =?5/<7G7<5 A63; 7< / D/F A6/A 1=B:2 03 63/?2 :A6=B56 # 6/C3 :7C32 7< : 3??7A= A63 4=B? F3/?@ # 272 47<2 =BA /0=BA A67@ B?3@3;3 *A?33A A= C73D A63 A6/A 7@ 5=7<5 A= 03 23C3:=>32 A63?3 A63 >=A33<7<5 B> D723<7<5 A63 6=D A6/A D=B:2 3<6/<13 A63 A63 %F D/:9 A==9 ;3 AD= A6?33 @A=?F 0B7:27<5@ A6/A 47A 7< D7A6 A63 <37560=?6==2 7< @B16 / D/F A= 03 0/?3:F <=A713/0:3 D6/A A63F 6756 23<@7AF 6=B@7<5 +63 1=B<17:@ =4 A63 *A?33A 7< A63 D/F A63 23C3:=>3? D7A6=BA =>3<7<5 B> A63 1?339 @1/:7<5 2=D< A63 23C3:=>;3:F 27@/>>=73?13:3 /;7:F D6716 7@ D6F A63?3 0B7:27<5@ 7< A67@ +63 <3D D7:: ;/93 A67@ A63 23<@3:F >=>B:/A32 7< : 3??7A= 3C3< 23<@3:F >=>B:/A32 +63 D6=:3 >67:=@=>6F =4 B?0/< 23C3:=>;33<@7C3 +63F D7:: :793:F 6=B@3 @7<5:3@ 1=B>:3@ D7A6=BA 167:2?3< 033< A63 1/@3 7< 17A73@ :793 3?93:3F D63?3 ?3@72363?3 63?3 =4 A63@3 4=:9@ D7:: ;=C3 =<13 A63F @A/?A 4/;7:73@ )3A/7: ?3;332 G=<3 A6/A D3:: >/F7<5 8=0@ 74 D7:: 03 1?3/A32 +63 723/ A6/A D7:: D/:9 071F1:3 B@3 >B0:71 A?/<@7A 7@ / 6=>3 / 4/1A :7C7<5 7< A63 G=<3 D7:: @A7:: 16==@3 A= 2?7C3 ?/A63? A6/< D/:9 ?723 A637? 0793@ 27@/0:32 A= 0793 D/:9 27@A/<13 D6/A D3 <332 A= /A A?/<@7A @6BAA:3@ A= 3@>317/::F A63 3:23?:F A6=@3 D6= 1/<A D/:9 0793 1=<@723? / A6/A 2=D< A63 :3C3: =4 23C3:=>;3;3@ A= >?3@3?C3 A63 3E7@A7<5 (/53  =4   47:3 ,  *3 ---PAGE BREAK--- 0B@7<3@@3@ 7< A63 *7<13?3:F C7?B@ 4=B<2 7< A67@ ;3@@/53 631932 0F DDD /C5  ,7?B@ )3:3/@3 /A3 (/53  =4   47:3 ,  *3 ---PAGE BREAK---    &           399< %39/;73 &37560B3@A@ A6/A A63 /AA/1632 (B0971 $3AA3?@ A63 (/09< C3;B3 *=317471 03 7;19B232 7; A63 7AF JGE 9 LOG O==C LJAH LG<9Q 9F< BMKL >GMF< GML 9:GML 29F /9:DG N=FM= 2H=;A>A; /D9F ( O9FL LG NGA;= EQ LG HD9F $D "=JJALG 9F< 1A;@EGF< FF=P K@GMD< FGL <=FKALQ 9J=9K 3@=Q 9J=F L D9J?= ;ALA=K DAC= .9CD9F< 9F< K@GMD>A; ;GF?=KLAGF 9F< HGL=FLA9D >GJ F=?9LAN= 9>>=;LK GF 9AJ IM9DALQ 9F< @=9DL@ G> J=KA<=FLK AF 9J=9 DDGOAF? EM;@ KLJM;LMJ=K G> >AN= GJ KAP KLGJA=K OADD 9DKG :DG;C NA=OK L@9L J=KA<=FLK N9DM= 1=KA<=FLK G> $D "=JJALG 9F< 1A;@EGF< FF=P N9DM= 9J=9 K 9K 9 KE9DD ;GEEMFALQ 6= GJ 29F /9:DG N=FM= 9F< ;GE= MH OAL@ 9 L@9L C==HK <=KAJ=K 9F< O=DD :=AF? G> J=KA<=FLK AF EAF< 3@9FCK >GJ QGMJ 9LL=FLAGF LG L@AK E9LL=J +9MJ=F 2;@A>>E9F ;J9;CE9?9RAF= @GLE9AD;GE 1A;@EGF< FF=P J=KA<=FL ---PAGE BREAK--- Dear El Cerrito City Council members and Melanie Mintz, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed development plan (SPASP) that sets forth major changes that would directly impact the quality of life in my neighborhood. I am a long-time resident of Panama Avenue in the Richmond Annex. We enjoy streets that are currently not used as alternate routes for the major arteries of traffic in the area. The SPASP plan would threaten this benefit that we currently have. We enjoy relatively clean air and are not surrounded by an urban landscape of high rises that ultimately makes the streets unsafe and encourages crime. And the proposed SPASP plan clearly threatens our quality of life in this regard. The SPASP project proposes changes that would directly impact the quality of life in Richmond Annex. Urbanization of San Pablo Avenue throughout El Cerrito is an unwelcome and incorrect approach to development in this area. We enjoy a relatively high quality of life in Richmond Annex with views of the El Cerrito and surrounding hills. We value our views of the El Cerrito, Albany, and Berkeley hills, and we vehemently object to the proposed 5 and 6 storied buildings under consideration. If this is allowed, the entire historical character of our neighborhood will be lost, as well as our views. I object to the use of form-based codes that provide a quick and dirty development without any regard for the historical characteristics of our area as well as complete disregard for the aesthetics of the space and (quality of life) of residents. I support historical preservation of the area between Central and Fairmount and all areas that border Richmond Annex. I am especially concerned about the proposed development because it creates a high-density zone that cannot be supported by current roads: Central Avenue is an already overwhelmed and chaotic street to the freeway that cannot support the amount of traffic currently found there. It is also dangerous because of the high density: cars, people, bikes, buses, all sharing a very limited public road and limited space. This plan is for the quick buck of the developers and has nothing to offer the current residents. The SPASP is short-sighted and should be stopped. This plan will produce an over-built, over-developed area that will forever change the character of the Richmond Annex. Stop these developers. I'm sure they do not live here. Save the Annex. Sincerely, Stanley Jupp 5619 Panama Ave Richmond Annex, CA 94804 ---PAGE BREAK--- San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Dear El Cerrito City Council members and Melanie Mintz, I am a resident and taxpayer in El Cerrito. I am strongly against the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan.  5 stories or 6 stories are way out of proportion : way too tall for the neighborhood  Really poor aesthetics and view blockage  Making San Pablo Avenue more unappealing : completely over-scaled - is not the direction I would like to see developed  Traffic is already bad, especially during commute hours  Creating bike lanes on San Pablo Avenue would be dangerous!  Where is everyone going to park? It is already difficult to find parking to support local businesses. Please reconsider this plan : it will not benefit our neighborhood. Ellen Deitch ---PAGE BREAK--- September 11, 2014 El Cerrito City Council members; Melanie Mintz, Planning Director 10890 San Pablo Avenue El Cerrito, CA 94530 Dear El Cerrito City Council members and Melanie Mintz, I am writing regarding the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan. I am very concerned about the high- density zoning, building heights and setbacks, traffic and parking issues, and noise and pollution problems presented by the current proposal. El Cerrito and Richmond Annex are family- and elderly- friendly residential neighborhoods with a high degree of community and cohesion, and several aspects of the plan would severely degrade the quality of life in this area. Four- and five-story buildings and reduced setbacks would have a dramatic negative impact on the character of the neighborhood. Form-based codes for new development would reduce public input and could result in construction that further destroys a neighborhood area. Traffic is already a problem along San Pablo Avenue, and turning one lane in each direction to a Sharrow Lane will create gridlock and be dangerous for bicyclists. Remember that many drivers use San Pablo Avenue as an alternate route for I-80, especially when I-80 is highly congested or there has been an accident. The plan seriously reduces commercial and residential parking, and this will impact nearby residential streets, and could hurt businesses. I hope that the city of El Cerrito will revise the plan to address these issues and maintain the high quality of life in our neighborhoods. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, Mary Jean Moore 5724 Van Fleet Avenue Richmond, CA 94804 ---PAGE BREAK--- Dear El Cerrito City Council members and Melanie Mintz, I grew up in El Cerrito and now reside in the Richmond Annex with my family. I have long-welcomed a thoughtful development plan for San Pablo Avenue. While the proposed plan is welcome as a start to the process, I'm afraid that it is sorely lacking in the area of preservation of key elements of the neighborhoods it will impact. Central to my concerns are the proposed building heights, safety, parking, and historical preservation of the area. For an area with a small-town feel, I would be more interested in developing existing structures, updating them, and ensuring that the look and feel are more residential in nature (for example, the Vital Building at Orchard Street) than turning the area into a major commercial center (like downtown Berkeley or Emeryville). My parents chose to raise their family in this area because of its residential nature with access to major facilities (parks, senior centers, post offices, shopping, etc) and I did too. The proposed plan would irreparably alter that nature. Please return to the plans and reconsider, from the stand-point of the existing residents. the proposed plan allows for much taller buildings that are considered appropriate for a residential area. Currently, we all share a view of the hills and the bay. We do not have to crane our necks to see the sky, and pedestrians remain visible on sidewalks. Keeping building height at 3 stories (35 feet or less) would allow for expansion of businesses without compromising a major sense of space or safety. Additionally, in terms of safety, I have been grateful for the city's efforts to create safe passages for students walking to schools in the area. By raising the height of the buildings, we increase the traffic to the area--both on San Pablo and the side streets (where people will inevitably cut-through to avoid traffic),creating more risk for the students as well as potential conflicts from an environmental health standpoint, and potentially requiring another long wait for safety impact studies. Please begin with the safety considerations for the families that chose to live in the area because of its walkable distances to schools, libraries, parks, post offices, shopping, etc. Growth in a commercial area should also be coupled with a deeper consideration for traffic impacts. As it is, parking is tight for those of us whose homes are close to commercial development (just ask anyone near the El Cerrito Natural Grocery Store). We work together to manage these issues and still clashes arise, from time-to- time. I firmly hold that residential neighborhoods are helped when commercial enterprise is interspersed. I'm concerned that the current plan is seeking to create a commercial area with a few residencies interspersed. Please provide goal statements that reflect the desired relationship between the commercial and residential members of the community. We will do better if we are proceed in concert, from the beginning. There are a number of existing commercial structures along San Pablo that would be better-helped with a face lift than by increased square footage. The city has a long history as a center for the arts and music--a place highly desired for the growing family, and a place where people greet each other, learn from each other, and work together. Radically shifting the structures of the buildings and the relationships all at once will be disastrous for those of us who, in all other respects, stand behind the plan to develop San Pablo into a thriving mixed-use street. I would be happy to discuss my thoughts further, and currently stand in opposition to the proposed San Pablo Avenue Development Plan. With thanks for the opportunity to respond, Noemi Hollander 6103 Sacramento Ave Richmond, CA 94804 ---PAGE BREAK--- Dear El Cerrito City Council members and Melanie Mintz, This letter is in regard to the proposed San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan. As a 35-year resident of Richmond Annex located within one block of San Pablo Avenue, I must express firm opposition to the following aspects of the proposed San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan (SPASP), and for the indicated reasons. 1) Building height limits Currently, the building height limit along San Pablo Avenue is 35 feet or 3 stories. Most buildings currently in the Midtown section, a major view corridor, are one story. The SPASP proposes a new and replacement construction building height limit at 55 feet or 5 stories, and at 65 feet or 6 stories with a density bonus, for the Midtown area. This would increase the current average height of buildings in this area by up to six times. This is grossly excessive, completely out of character with the adjacent and surrounding single-family residences, and is totally unacceptable. Bordering this area, the Downtown section height limit is proposed at 65 feet or 6 stories, and at 85 feet or 8 stories with a density bonus. No other moderately-sized city along the length of San Pablo Avenue allows this kind of out-of-scale building height limit, especially where it would affect view corridors. Albany's section of San Pablo Avenue has a height limit of 38 feet, which would be appropriate for El Cerrito's MIdtown, as well as Uptown and Downtown. A wall of buildings in Midtown in the 55-to 65 foot range would cut out views of the Bay for El Cerrito residences up to at least Norvell Street, significantly reduce views up to Avis Street, and would block views of the El Cerrito hills for Richmond Annex Residents. This view blockage in such a major view corridor will negatively affect property values in both cities. In addition, these proposed changes would imply an increase in human population density of between five and eight times current levels. Where are the data to support this demand for this area? This population increase would by itself create traffic and infrastructure demands well in excess of the capacity of the entire area. 2) Traffic congestion issues San Pablo Avenue is the primary non-freeway route between Hercules and Oakland. It has two lanes of traffic in each direction and left-turn pockets at various locations along its length. SPASP proposes to reduce the two lanes to one lane in the Uptown and Downtown sections, replacing one traffic lane with Super Sharrow (transit) combined with bicycles. In addition, the speed limit is proposed to be reduced from 30 mph to 25 mph. These changes will have several undesirable effects: A) Creation of bottlenecks, flow stoppage and long back-ups of traffic where no such congestion exists currently. B) Diversion of traffic onto side streets as motorists avoid the bottlenecks This already occurs on Carlson Boulevard, Stockton Avenue, Richmond Street, and Central Avenue during weekday commute hours and weekend peak hours. With SPASP proposed changes, El Cerrito could well earn the reputation of "worst traffic in the East Bay", which would defeat the city's purpose of attracting visitors and business customers. This, along with high density development along the avenue, and El Cerrito could end up on the "avoid at all costs" list. C) Bike lanes on San Pablo Avenue There currently exist excellent bike lanes nearly parallel to San Pablo Avenue, one under the BART track and another along Carlson Boulevard. There is no convincing rationale to place additional bike lanes on San Pablo Avenue which is, has been, and always will be a roadway for motor vehicles. El Cerrito is engaging in environmental utopianism if it believes it can change a major motorized thoroughfare into a "bike and pedestrian-friendly" promenade, an idea more appropriate for a town square in a rural or semi-rural area, but not in the already densely populated East Bay. D) Parking The SPASP greatly reduces the commercial and high-density residential parking requirements. This means that business patrons will park on side streets in single-family home residential areas of Richmond Annex and El Cerrito, creating parking shortages for long-term residents. This is already happening to some extent, and will be a major issue if SPASP is implemented. E) Central Avenue The current traffic congestion and delays on Central Avenue between San Pablo Avenue and the I-80 Interchange area during weekday and weekend peak hours are well known to be among the worst in the Bay Area, if not the state. The so-called "Central Avenue/I-80 Interchange Improvement Project" by itself will cause even more congestion and delays, as access to the I-80 Westbound onramp will be closed from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. on weekends. To add to this, the SPASP proposes high density residential construction on both sides of Central Avenue between San Pablo and Belmont avenues. Most housing along this stretch are one to two stories currently, but under the SPASP this could increase by a factor of up to six times, with a height limit of 65 feet or 6 stories. This will create a horrendous traffic flow problem, even with reduced residential parking requirements, and will cause new residents to park in El Cerrito and Richmond Annex single family neighborhoods, reducing parking availability for long-term residents. This is unacceptable. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3) Form-based Codes (FBC) These building codes create a pre-approved uniform style, height, and functionality for an entire area of town, or a whole town. The problem is that they do not allow for adequate public review or input and therefore have the de facto effect of changing the character of an area of town, or an entire town, without serious regard to long-term current residential, commercial, or historical considerations. Rather, it encourages out-of-town developers to re-design an area without effective local input. This may be acceptable for a new small town in a rural area, but is totally inappropriate for a long-established town or district. I firmly oppose this Form-based Code concept for the El Cerrito/Richmond Annex area for the following reasons: A) Reduced parking requirements New commercial development in El Cerrito Plaza and areas near the BART station will have reduced parking requirements, forcing patrons to overload side streets in residential areas. BART lots are already full by early morning, and remain so throughout the afternoon. A different business model is needed if reduced vehicle mileage is desired. B) Service businesses discouraged The type of building style proposed under SPASP will not be appropriate for service-type businesses, which are locally owned. Instead, the Form-based Codes encourage out-of -town developers to install national chain and other types which are not locally owned. This can destroy an existing town's unique character, and is unacceptable. C) Rebuilding after an emergency The Form-based Codes require that existing structures destroyed by fire or earthquake be rebuilt according to the FBC, not the way the original building was designed. This has the effect of changing an existing building or business into something different without significant public input or review. This is unacceptable in our area, prone as it is to earthquakes. In summary, El Cerrito should rethink the entire SPASP concept, starting with drastically reducing its scale, and dropping the Form-based Codes. In view of the potential problems outlined above, I would recommend firing the consultants on this project for even suggesting such drastic changes to density, outrageous commercial height limits, severe parking reduction, and the very inappropriate Form-based Codes. Develop a plan which maintains the low-key character of, and improves the traffic flow on, the currently busy San Pablo Avenue thoroughfare, while at the same time does not destroy the character of the long-established single-family residential areas on both sides of the avenue in El Cerrito and Richmond Annex. Not all change is progress, and not all progress is good or desirable. Thank you. Dave Harris Richmond Annex ---PAGE BREAK--- SPASP Dear El Cerrito City Council members and Melanie Mintz, After attending the planning commission meeting on July 16, none of my fears about this plan have been allayed. A printed synopsis of the SPASP should have been made available to all those property owners, both residential and commercial, that are within the boundaries of the plan and they should have been directly contacted by mail. To post it only on the website to make everyone hunt for it makes it seem as though the City Council and the Planning Commission doesn't want input from the people of El Cerrito, especially those directly affected. No consideration is given to increased traffic on Central Ave trying to access I-80 . This is already problematic and not just at commute hours. The plan for 172 units with 309 parking spaces at 5260 Central Ave may not affect San Pablo directly, but will greatly impact access to I-80. The Creekside plan of 128 units and 192 parking spaces will impact San Pablo. Both of these plans have already been approved. Adding additional high-density housing should not be considered until the impact from these projects is alleviated. !1*33&. 1*()3 *2 9 1/+&$32   3"3*/.2 01/5*%& no parking spaces by right." The idea of denying parking allocation for new residents and businesses in order to promote the use of public transportation is unrealistic. Even those who now use BART for work, have cars for use when they cannot use BART: e.g. going to Tahoe or the coast or shopping that is not available from BART. And people from other areas are not going to shop at businesses along San Pablo if they cannot park. The CS Figure 12. Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities Map shows plans for bicycle paths on Ohlone Greenway and Kearney Street. This, in addition to the sharrows and bike lanes proposed on San Pablo, makes three parallel bike paths within three or four blocks of each other. The Ohlone Greenway already exists and is being upgraded. The others plans are superfluous. The SPASP would be fine in a utopian world where a community was being planned from the start. But it is not well thought out for a community that is already in existence. Mary Yaholkovsky ---PAGE BREAK--- Dear El Cerrito City Council members and Melanie Mintz, Thank you for the opportunity to voice my opinion as a home owner in the Richmond Annex. My name is Lynell Clutts and I live on Tehama Avenue. When traffic is backed up on  or there is an accident, the traffic moves from the freeway to San Pablo Avenue in El Cerrito. After 4:00 pm traffic is ridiculous in this area already. has become a through way for cars coming off the freeway at )GXRYUT then turning up Tehama. The cars coming from 9INSOJZ2GTKcross 9GT6GHRU'\K onto Tehama in the opposite direction. Cars have to stop and pull over to the side of the road so the other car/cars can go by. Tehama is too narrow for this to continue. Located on the corner of Tehama and San Pablo is the Smog Tester, there are also 2 auto body shops on either side. There are cars parked everywhere on Tehama Avenue. This new plan would cause major problems in the city of El Cerrito and the Richmond Annex. And didn't some of our neighbors in the Annex buy their homes with a view? I know their homes probably cost $50,000 or more, just for the view, I know if I had a view I wouldn't want the City of El Cerrito stealing it from me. I've already had a water pipe break from the street to my house. Due to age. Many Annex homes were built in the 1940's. Adding more stress on our infrastructure would cause even more damage to our already damaged and cracked streets and old pipes. This must not happen to El Cerrito and the Richmond Annex. Sincerely, Lynell Clutts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ear El Cerrito City Council members and Melanie Mintz: My home is located on the 5600 block of Alameda Avenue in Richmond Annex, two blocks from San Pablo Avenue. I understand that El Cerrito's proposed SPASP (San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan) will increase residential density along San Pablo Avenue which will automatically increase the traffic traveling thereon. For the past several years driving on San Pablo Avenue in the morning en route to work in Berkeley I have faced gridlock traffic. Moving to Richmond Avenue did not help as that route south also becomes bumper to bumper. It seems to me irrational to increase residential density with resultant traffic increase. Please rethink your proposed Plan. I understand further that in the Plan height of proposed buildings along San Pablo will be increased from the current height levels. As a consequence my area of the Annex will be sandwiched between high buildings and the freeway-- claustrophobic at least with very bad air flow. Our Richmond Annex Neighborhood Council has some excellent ideas for alternatives to El Cerrito's Plan. Example is the Vital Bldg's height at Orchard--a perfect fit for its lot. Please review RANC's suggestions for change of SPASP with your City Council. Sincerely, Vogel, Richmond Annex ---PAGE BREAK--- Dear El Cerrito City Council members and Melanie Mintz, Or better known as SPASM. It=s a Plan to develop San Pablo Avenue from Richmond Annex to Albany border with complexes 65 to 85 ft high, decrease the avenue from 4 lanes to 2 lanes with bike and bus paths taking up the other 2 former lanes. Parking is to be provided for the apartments is to be 1 space per apartment. The council said " to encourage people to get out of their cars". Part of the plan is to line Central Avenue as well. Link to SPASP: www.el-cerrito.org/SPASP to read I oppose this redevelopment plan as it is NOT well thought through! San Pablo Avenue is a State Highway 123. In El Cerrito, it functions as a major overflow for traffic when the Freeway 80 is congested. Freeway 80 is well known to have almost daily congestion during commute hours, traffic then diverts to San Pablo and also to Richmond and all other minor arterials, thus making them also highly congested, noise and pollution following, not to mention, increased accident potential. The plan to line Central avenue with apartment complexes is insane! The street is already a nightmare of stopped traffic that I try my best to avoid at all times. Just the addition of only one car per family in addition to the regular traffic using the street to access the freeway and local destinations, boggles my mind and gives me a headache! Parking on San Pablo is not the best; even now, I can't find a close place to attend the Cerrito Theater. Replacing the current buildings with new apartment complexes will take years and years of huge construction machines, NOISE, dirt, dust, etc! Barbara Sholtz ---PAGE BREAK--- Dear El Cerrito City Council members and Melanie Mintz, I am an El Cerrito residence since 1986. I am having following concerns with SPASP project: 1. Central Ave.: It is one of the busiest streets in El Cerrito due to access to freeway 80. If there is no better planning with the flow of traffic with State, Richmond and El Cerrito, the traffic will get grid lock during commuting hours (as it is already now). 2. San Pablo Ave. reducing speed limit from 30 to 25mph and adding bike lanes: San Pablo Ave is a heavy traffic street. The proposed lower speed and bike lane does not make sense when compound with the reduction of parking space along San Pablo Ave with the in between build-in planter parking (Very hard to park in and get out. University Ave. and Fairmont Ave. are good examples). The planter on the parking lane reduce the parking space and make the street looks crowded). Ohlone Green way is already a good bike lane along San Pablo Ave. , why make another 2 lanes to further reduce the traffic capacity of San Pablo Ave. ? 3. 15)4% %-049 34/2% &2/.4 %22)4/ /2$%2 4/ )49 #)49 better revive the under used area before working on areas which have no problem right now and create a new set of issues? City managers and staffs come and go, but residence like me is staying for a long time. Long term impact is my main concern. Philip Koo, PE, MCSE President PLK2 Associates, Inc. 950 Liberty St., El Cerrito , CA 94530 ---PAGE BREAK--- Dear El Cerrito City Council members and Melanie Mintz, I oppose SPASP. San Pablo corridor should continue to be beautified and transformed into a community, family, and tourist friendly area. It seemed that you were on the right track, and now you are proposing ruining the developing beauty of this area. Why not make money by hiring an advertising agency to promote the area and its surrounding beauty areas, including the Richmond Annex, walking routes, bay trails, close to all areas in the Bay Area, etc? We have a wonderful business in the The Natural Food Store and Annex Food Court, as an example of one successful and people-oriented businesses. Promote these types of businesses. Next, get rid of all the so-called "massage and adult" businesses along the San Pablo corridor, and if this means working with Richmond to do this, then that is where your attention should be focused. Also, in regard to car dealerships and other businesses, require them to paint their businesses in earth-tones and keep their businesses cleared of weeds and other debris, which will attract and bring in consumers, instead of some of the ugly painted buildings and messy properties (and empty lots) which are now along the SP Ave corridor. A CLEAN CITY DETERS VAGRANTS. Believe me, consumers do not want to shop where there are vagrants and unkempt businesses in areas where people want to shop. DO NOT allow high density, reduced rear setbacks, reduced parking requirements and other suggestions of SPASP, along the entire San Pablo Corridor in El Cerrito or in Richmond and Richmond Annex areas. STOP SPASP, WE NEED HISTORICAL PRESERVATION, LESS TRAFFIC CONGESTION, HEALTH AND AIR QUALITY FOCUS, REDUCTION IN NOISE POLLUTION & ODORS (NOT AN INCREASE). Excessive development will burden already undermanned city services, such as police, fire and public works. It will also put a strain on the infrastructure, such as water, sewer and streets. Thank you for your time and attention and to considering the negative impact SPASP will have on both our business and on our residential communities and neighborhoods. Virginia Velasquez-Cruz ---PAGE BREAK--- Dear El Cerrito City Council members and Melanie Mintz, I am writing to state my concerns about the San Pablo Ave Specific Plan. Allowing the development of this area with buildings 5 and 6 stories tall along Richmond Annex up to Albany is not good for our community. We do not want huge 55-85 ft high / 200-300 ft long buildings such as those that would be possible under this plan. This type of development will overburden the area with traffic and cars seeking a place to park within the neighborhoods. The conduit streets to the 80 and 580 freeways are already a problem. Furthermore, these are the same conduits used by our fire department and police in an emergency. Tall buildings will block out light and views for existing residents. This will not create an environment of community and openness but a sense of being blocked in. I don't see that any resident nearby will gain from this type of development. It is the developers and those who are involved with developers who will benefit to the detriment of our neighborhood and sense of community. McMillan ---PAGE BREAK--- Dear El Cerrito City Council members and Melanie Mintz, I would also like to ask a question. I am not a geologist nor a seismologist, but I wonder about the fault lines that run through our region and how the added pressure of such high structures might affect them. Is it possible that greater weight per square footage of surface area might increase earth quakes locally? Edward Spencer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ear El Cerrito City Council members and Melanie Mintz, I have been a resident of the Richmond Annex (5830 Van fleet Avenue) for nearly 20 years, and I am writing to express my deep concerns about zoning and development proposals for the areas surrounding my neighborhood. I don't know if either of you has driven down Central Avenue toward the Pacific Mall or Costco/ Pt. Isabel recently; if you have, you must realize that traffic there is already horrendous, especially on weekends. It is common to have to wait out 2 to 3 traffic lights just to crawl through the highly congested intersection at the turnoff for the mall and freeway on-ramps. The Pacific Mall was very poorly planned although the parking lot is fairly large, access into and out of it is extremely limited, with cars stacked up all day long on the weekends just to turn into the lot. The idea of adding a massive development of up to six stories just a few blocks away at 5620 Central is absurd it will no doubt push the existing congestion over the top. Central Avenue is extremely narrow, and the scope of the project considered at 5620 is way out of proportion and overbuilt not only for the general area, but especially for the size of the lot. Plus, I'm extremely worried about plans to bring up to 6-story buildings along much of the length of San Pablo Avenue. That stretch is already a nightmare to navigate on the weekends as far south as Solano. Of course I would welcome reasonable development along San Pablo, but why on earth would you want to go from 2-story current limits to 6-story buildings? It makes absolutely no sense to me. It will create a canyon-like effect along the avenue, and no doubt increase noise, pollution and parking problems which will have an adverse impact on both neighbors and businesses in the area. I just returned from a week-long stay in Los Angeles, and once again I was reminded why I live here and not there. Please don't make the same planning mistakes that have made parts of L.A. so ugly, and unlivable. Development, yes I'd love to see a better mix of 1 and 2-story businesses along the avenue but please don't approve plans that will have lasting negative impacts on a neighborhood we love to call home! Thank you for your consideration. Elaine Korry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ear El Cerrito City Council members and Melanie Mintz, My husband and I live at 6201 Tehama Avenue, 100 feet from San Pablo Avenue in the Richmond Annex. We have too many cars going up and down our street from Midtown development in El Cerrito and the DMV. The new five-story affordable apartments being built on Potrero Avenue across from CVS Pharmacy will add more traffic to our very narrow street. The new proposed San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan will add more traffic congestion to adjoining Richmond Annex neighbors and take away scenic views from El Cerrito and Annex homeowners. Five- and six-story high buildings on San Pablo Avenue are too high and bulky. In addition, form-forced codes will create ticky-tacky buildings. Fast-tracking development projects benefit the developers only and will be ugly. Why are parking requirements going to be eased for the new projects? Where will the tenants and customers park their cars? Richmond Annex neighbors already get some of the overflow from San Pablo Avenue. i. e. The Prepared Food Annex of El Cerrito Natural Grocery does not have adequate parking for all of its customers and people are parking on Carlson Boulevard already. We have watched Midtown development from its inception. The storefronts did not have tenants for several years after the project was finished and apartment leases had to be discounted. Even today there are still empty storefronts. Just because you build it, does not mean that the customers will come. Two-story height limits on San Pablo Avenue would create livable and lovely spaces. And we will have a view of the lovely El Cerrito hills. Bulky tall buildings are not pleasing to look at. Central Avenue traffic is already a mess. There is a need for two-story apartments, but not for 65 feet development projects with their accompanying noise and pollution. Rear setbacks of five feet only to houses will create noise and pollution for residents who are behind the new building. Fumes and odors will create liabilities for the businesses. Please revise your standards for the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan. We are a residential neighborhood. Sincerely, Pamela Coville and Rollin Coville 6201 Tehama Avenue Richmond, CA 94804-5053 ---PAGE BREAK--- Dear El Cerrito City Council members and Melanie Mintz: I am a Richmond Annex resident. I am concerned about all the issues listed on the High-Density Zone flyer. My partner and I are concerned about every issue listed there. We have seen Berkeley starting to develop buildings which are so much larger than the older structures; they have destroyed the aesthetic of "old Berkeley" and such buildings will do the same to the El Cerrito and Richmond Annex area. I will not detail all my thoughts on each point in the flyer, but we support each of the 11 points mentioned. We love our area and want to keep it beautiful, safe and clean. Thanks for your concerns. Barbara Hauser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eptember 11, 2014 Vivian L. Ko 1807 Ralston Ave. Richmond, CA 94805 El Cerrito City Council Members Melanie Mintz, Planning Director El Cerrito City Hall 10890 San Pablo Avenue El Cerrito, CA 94530 Dear El Cerrito City Council members and Ms. Mintz: I live in unincorporated Richmond, near Arlington Avenue in the hills. I am a Board Member of the Richmond Annex Senior Center Board of Directors and avoid San Pablo Avenue because of the traffic. I either take the freeway or Key Boulevard and Richmond Street in El Cerrito to get to the Senior Center in Richmond Annex. I frequently volunteer much of my hours in this area and shop at Costco, Ranch 99 Market, and Trader Joes at the El Cerrito Plaza. This is where I do my banking. Taking the bus would be inconvenient, considering I live in the hills. I am very concerned about the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan. I truly believe that traffic will become worse if this plan is approved. There are new bike lanes on Carlson Boulevard and the Ohlone Greenway, which are sufficient for the bicyclists. With the high density buildings, El Cerrito will resemble Berkeley, Walnut Creek, or Oakland and block views of the Golden Bridge. There would be a major difference between tall buildings and the El Cerrito homes, lowering their values. As a senior citizen, I use a cane and still drive my car. This is my main mode of transportation that I need, so I can shop at the grocery stores and do all my errands. Limiting access to San Pablo Avenue would be a major disservice to senior citizens. Reducing the parking in front of the businesses and also reducing the parking requirements for the commercial districts on San Pablo Avenue would make it difficult for me to access the businesses in El Cerrito. I urge you to provide reasonable density and adequate parking for El Cerrito and Richmond citizens and not approve the San Pablo Avenue 5.,%33 )4<3 Thank you for giving me the opportunity to submit my comments. Vivian L. Ko ---PAGE BREAK--- 5 2=B 8>7,25 !.5*72. !27=C = ,86. =8 *==.7=287 95*7< $*+58 478@7 8998<.- =8 9;898<.- +2,B,5. 9*=1 87 $*+58 @.55 9*;4270 +24.- /;86 5 =8 6.;B?255. 6*7B @1.7 @8;4270 = =8 9*=1 <=255 2< -8 78= ,870.<=287 =8 $*+58 *6 *7 5 &27,.;.5B 58B- 8B7. ---PAGE BREAK--- Dear El Cerrito City Council members and Melanie Mintz, I am writing to you in hopes you will share this letter with all the appropriate members of the city planning department and city council. This is regarding the proposed changes for the city plans for the properties lining San Pablo Avenue. I understand that you are considering changing to include housing and other use buildings that can  (   ) #  ) I have so many objections that it is difficult to know where to begin. Here are my concerns, although they may not be in order of urgency. 1. San Pablo Ave is a major thoroughfare. It was in use before the highways were built and is still used as an alternate route whenever the highways are coping with accidents or slow downs. It is also the major thoroughfare to get from one end of El Cerrito to the other. When I am driving an errand in town, I use that street, and, if the parking is available, will often make an extra stop to check in at one of the small shops along the Avenue. Anything that would add to the congestion or make parking more sparse than it is already is to be avoided. Even one high rise, Even one more 6 family dwelling will make an impact. To offer up nearly the entire length of El Cerrito to such an increase in density would be totally to the existing commerce, the fluid travel of our citizens and the entire northern east bay, at busy highway times. 2. It is absolutely uncalled for to allow buildings in our city that are as huge as the proposed allowances. I can only see that as motivated by greed, by a desire to bring money into the city with no regard for the quality of life of the existing citizens. Many residents living uphill of San Pablo Ave. count on their views of the bay or the homes on this side of the bay to enrich their experience in El Cerrito. I can see the Golden Gate Bridge and some lovely views, even though I live only 2 blocks East of San Pablo. Not only will my enjoyment of sunsets, weather watching, and stars be withered to the distance of 2 blocks, but the value of my property will drop considerably. It would be significant enough for me to put my home on the market if this height allowance is permitted. That way, I might realize my investment before it is lessened. I abhor the idea of moving out of El Cerrito, but if my views are obstructed, the traffic is congested, and the neighborhoods are altered so measurably in human and auto density, it would not be the city I fell in love with, anyway. Please consider a more moderate measure. Even offering a double density to what is permitted now would have a large impact on the quality of our lives, but we can adjust to something like that. Keep $ # # stories, and will be annoying, if allowed everywhere, but at "  #   $ Thank you for your time, Arlin Robins 513 Lexington Ave. El Cerrito ---PAGE BREAK--- September 11, 2014 El Cerrito City Council members Melanie Mintz, Planning Director 10890 San Pablo Ave. El Cerrito, CA 94530 Dear El Cerrito City Council members and Melanie Mintz: These are my comments for the San Pablo Ave. Specific Plan and EIR. Aesthetics *38 2415&8 &11*3/ 1&2*%&.32 "#/43 &11*3/=2 "&23)&3*$2 24#41#". 3/ 41#". El Cerrito residents love its suburban aesthetic. They appreciate nice views, short buildings, plentiful parking and a more laid-back, restful lifestyle. They live here to be away from stress-inducing visuals, such as traffic congestion, parked cars lining every street, and dense population. They will not be happy when they discover your urbanization plans. Cultural and Historic Resources The SPASP goals include creating a sense of place and community. Among the most important characteristics of a place or a community is its heritage and history. The City recognized this when it recently laid pavers in the sidewalks of the downtown area, describing the early days of El Cerrito. Many buildings from this era are still in use today. %*2341# Buildings built before 1930 are of cultural and historic importance and 01&2&15&% "2 " 3&23"-&.3 3/ &11*3/=2 3)*2 *2 &2pecially true of buildings on San Pablo Ave. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Global Climate Change Plan Bay Area forecasts 1450 new jobs in El Cerrito between 2010-2040. &11*3/ the amount of allowable new housing units to the number of new jobs created within its border, in order to reduce its carbon footprint. After all, walking is better for the planet than one hour daily BART commutes (or car trips). Land Use and Planning The SPASP will result in poor city planning. Empirical evidence suggests that ground-floor commercial parcels in multi-story mixed-use buildings do not perform well on San Pablo Ave. The City acknowledges this by 20"$& < '*123 ,"3&1 3/ "1&"2 Yet this begs the question, why displace commercial buildings by constructing residential buildings on a commercial corridor? Zoning is supposed to prevent mistakes like these, not promote them. Also, if mixed-use buildings are bad for businesses today, why would this change in the future? A stated goal of the SPASP is to concentrate housing near BART stations, yet the SPASP area is remarkably lopsided in its proximity to BART. The westerly radius extends as far as 1 mile walk, while the easterly radius is basically non-existent? Why not build high density housing east of BART and/or make the SPASP area a perfect 1/4 mile radius from BART stations? Further studies are necessary to better align the map boundaries SPASP with its goals. Also, please define minimum and maximum densities for new buildings within the SPASP to better identify their potential impact. ---PAGE BREAK--- Noise The SPASP will lead to a major shortage of parking, and heavy traffic congestion due to reduced lane widths, sharrows, more crosswalks, and a reduced speed limit. These changes will impact traffic noise in many parts of El Cerrito, including on and around San Pablo Ave., Central Ave., Stockon St., and subsequently, the health and well-being of nearby residents. The city should measure this impact in a study and directly inform nearby residents of the results. Population and Housing El Cerrito population trends do not support a 16% increase in housing units by 2040. The 2010 census shows 3)"3 &11*3/=2 0/04,"3*/.  8&"12 52 "2 " 3)"3  current housing units were vacant. The City of El Cerrito i2 " &11*3/ "2 *,,4231"3&% 3)*2 table: Proposed # of new housing units in El Cerrito Plan Bay Area San Pablo Ave. Specific Plan Inside the SPASP area 1010 1706 Outside the SPASP area 270 0 Why add 33% more housing units than proposed by Plan Bay Area? Why cram all 1706 housing units into a geographic area comprising 11.5% of El Cerrito, and nothing in the remaining 88.5%? Show us some scientific measure supporting your proposal. Public Services a. Maintenance The city should study the effect of doubling or tripling the population of major streets like San Pablo Ave. on the level of litter and graffiti, as city is currently overwhelmed by the need for litter removal and graffiti abatement on San Pablo Ave. b. Parks and Libraries More housing units means more people sharing our parks and libraries. Will El Cerrito open new parks and libraries to serve its new residents? ---PAGE BREAK--- Transportation and Circulation Prior studies show that the area surrounding El Cerrito Del Norte Bart can handle higher population density than El Cerrito Plaza, yet the SPASP appears to treat these areas equally. Provide evidence showing that El Cerrito Plaza can support the proposed density level. Alternatives First, anchor the number of new housing units to the number of new jobs. Second, center the dense housing equally around BART stations, not around San Pablo Ave., unless you have strong evidence that it will benefit existing commercial business. Third, make it easier for single family residences to add a second unit to their backyards. It would lessen the need for high density housing and allow more homeowners to increase the overall value of their parcels. Sincerely, Nicholas Arzio ---PAGE BREAK--- Dear El Cerrito City Council members and Melanie Mintz, I am writing to you in hopes you will share this letter with all the appropriate members of the city planning department and city council. This is regarding the proposed changes for the city plans for the properties lining San Pablo Avenue. I understand that you are considering changing to include housing and other use buildings that can be occupied by 3)"3 "2 "2 3/ 0/22*#,8 I have so many objections that it is difficult to know where to begin. Here are my concerns, although they may not be in order of urgency. 1. San Pablo Ave is a major thoroughfare. It was in use before the highways were built and is still used as an alternate route whenever the highways are coping with accidents or slow downs. It is also the major thoroughfare to get from one end of El Cerrito to the other. When I am driving an errand in town, I use that street, and, if the parking is available, will often make an extra stop to check in at one of the small shops along the Avenue. Anything that would add to the congestion or make parking more sparse than it is already is to be avoided. Even one high rise, even one more 6 family dwelling will make an impact. To offer up nearly the entire length of El Cerrito to such an increase in density would be totally disastrous to the existing commerce, the fluid travel of our citizens and the entire northern east bay, at busy highway times. 2. It is absolutely uncalled for to allow buildings in our city that are as huge as the proposed allowances. I can only see that as motivated by greed, by a desire to bring money into the city with no regard for the quality of life of the existing citizens. Many residents living uphill of San Pablo Ave. count on their views of the bay or the homes on this side of the bay to enrich their experience in El Cerrito. I can see the Golden Gate Bridge and some lovely views, even though I live only 2 blocks East of San Pablo. Not only will my enjoyment of sunsets, weather watching, and stars be withered to the distance of 2 blocks, but the value of my property will drop considerably. It would be significant enough for me to put my home on the market if this height allowance is permitted. That way, I might realize my investment before it is lessened. I abhor the idea of moving out of El Cerrito, but if my views are obstructed, the traffic is congested, and the neighborhoods are altered so measurably in human and auto density, it would not be the city I fell in love with, anyway. Please consider a more moderate measure. Even offering a double density to what is permitted now would have a large impact on the quality of our lives, but we can adjust to something like that. Keep the height maximum 3/ *2  3/  23/1*&2 &5&186)&1& #43 "3 ,&"23 *3 *2.=3 2/ -"22*5& relation to the rest of our community. Thank you for your time, Arlin Robins 513 Lexington Ave. El Cerrito. ---PAGE BREAK--- #=9J $D "=JJALG "ALQ "GMF;AD E=E:=JK 9F< ,=D9FA= ,AFLR (F :=KL AFL=J=KL G> $D "=JJALG1A;@EGF< FF=P J=KA<=F;= ( 29F /9:DG N=FM= 2H=;A>A; /D9F 2/ 2/  -GL GFDQ OGMD< AL AFL=?JALQ G> GMJ ;ALQ :ML 9DKG ;J=9L= EGJ= LJ9>>A; ;GF?=KLAGF H9JCAF? AKKM=K FGAK= 9F< AF;J=9K= 9AJ ( 9E AF >9NGJ G> HJ=K=JNAF? @AKLGJA;9D JA=FA; /D9F 9K O=DD 3@9FC QGM &AFG  &DGJA9 ,9JLAFM;;A 1=KA<=FL G> $D "=JJALG KAF;= ---PAGE BREAK--- To: El Cerrito City Council members and Melanie Mintz I Frank Guzman, Resident and building owner on the 500 block of Kearney St. here in beautiful El Cerrito, CA. Do have a couple of concerns about the direction and implementation of how the SPASP will affect us here. I have seen and read the SPASP and noticed that we are right on the border of it. My first concern is the possibility of high rise buildings of 3 stories or more being built directly across the street from us. We already have a 4 story monstrosity next door to us at 524 Kearney St. that blocks the sun in 1/2 of our garden. We can only grow plants on the opposite side. And the owner's do a very poor job of maintaining the trees and landscaping. Which is a burden on us. However. They did provide the with a floor level parking lot. So the parking situation is not a total nightmare. Though there is a few of them that still park on the street. That brings me to my other concern. Parking. Here on the 500 block we get people parking from the El Cerrito Theater and adjoining restaurants. As much as I love our little downtown block. There is NO parking for it to grow anymore. I have already had to call police a couple of times. Because of car's blocking our garage's drive ways. I am all for development along San Pablo Ave. But please, please take into consideration. Adding the necessary parking to accommodate it. I see too many vacant lot's already. Why build a high rise next to an abandon business. I hope the growth you have planned improves the quality of life here. Not make it worse. Thank you. Frank Guzman ---PAGE BREAK--- .558 5 2=B 8>7,25 !.5*72. !27=C *6 *  186. 8@7.; 27 5 52?. 87 .A270=87 27 *2;68>7= 6*7B 8/ 269;8?.6.7=< =8 <>;;8>7-270 -87. <=;8705B -2<*99;8?. 8/ $*+58 $5*7 1201 -.7<2=B 18><270 =1270< =1274 =8 (2=1 87 2< * 9;8+5.6 87 $*+58 269*,= 8/ =>;7270 *2;68>7= $*+58 *;5<87 27=8 * <2705. 5*7. 27,;.*<270 8/ 27 18><270 27 @8>5- $*+58 27 =12< 8/ 78=8;28>< <58@ -8@7 6>,1 524. 8/ $*+58 27 $*;4270 52?270 ,58<. =8 <=*=287 9*;4270 2< *7 87 *  /85- *68>7= 8/ * +58,4< 9*;4270 @8>5- 2698<<2+5. 875B -2;=B 2< <27,. 78= @2=1 *5870 *55 18>;< @2=1 <8 6>,1 /88= 2< ,;26. 2< * ,87,.;7 '12< @8>5- 78 5870.; *7 2-.*5 58,*=287 =8 42-< ,1*70270 -.680;*912,< 8/ =18>01= =8 18><270 <=*=287 @8>5- 26*027. @8>5- * (125. <86. 269;8?.6.7= =8 %2,1687- 77.A 8/ $*+58 6*B 8=1.; =8 <85?. 8/ 27,;.*<270 18><270 @2=18>= *558@270  <=8;B ,87-8 ,8695.A.< =8 -8627*=. /;86 98=.7=2*55B ,1*70. 8>=5884 8/ /;86 /*625B =8 <86.=1270 '1*74< ;.?2.@270 6B ,866.7=< >6 2=HL=E:=J ---PAGE BREAK--- 2;9JD=LL '=HOGJL@ 9F< ,9JADQF *=9JF=Q 2L $D "=JJALG " $D "=JJALG "ALQ "GMF;AD E=E:=JK ,=D9FA= ,AFLR /D9FFAF? #AJ=;LGJ 29F /9:DG N=FM= 2H=;A>A; /D9F 29F /9:DG N= $D "=JJALG " #=9J $D "=JJALG "ALQ "GMF;AD E=E:=JK 9F< ,=D9FA= ,AFLR ( 9E OJALAF? LG QGM LG G>>A;A9DDQ =D=E=FLK G> 29F /9:DG N=FM= 2H=;A>A; /D9F 2/ 2/  6= EGN=< LG $D "=JJALG BMKL 9 DALLD= GN=J 9 Q=9J 9?G 9>L=J ,9JADQF F=O JLAKLA; #AJ=;LGJ 9L "GFLJ9 "GKL9 "ANA; 3@=9L=J 6= DAN=< >GJ FAF= Q=9JK AF 9 F=A?@:GJ@GG< K9LMJ9L=< OAL@ JAK= 9H9JLE=FL :MAD :DG;C G> !JG9 FME:=J G> 9H9JLE=FLK AF GMJ .9CD9F< F=A?@:GJ@GG< H9JCAF? O9K 9DO9QK >A;MDL A> FGL AEHGKKA:D= O@A;@ E9<= H9JCAF? 9 ;GFKA<=J9LAGF >GJ KLM<=FLK ;@GGKAF? LG KLM GMJ @GE= FGAK= D=N=D >JGE LJ9>>A; O9K HJ=K=FL @GMJK 9 <9Q (F FAF= Q=9JK O= F=N=J 9 KAF?D= IMA=L FA?@L .MJ @GE= AF .9CD9F< O9K :MJ?D=< O= DGKL L@GMK9F ?GG KAP LAE=K 9F< GMJ ;9J O9K KLGD=F !=AF? KG ;DGK= LG 9 D9J?= 9JL=JA9D 9K O= 9J= FGO LG 29F /9:DG GF= :DG;C =9KL O= O=J= 9F =9KQ L9J?=L >GJ ;JAEAF9DK O@G ;GMD< 9O9Q N=JQ IMA;CDQ 6= KL9JL=< 9 !DG;C 69L;@ GJ?9FAR9LAGF :ML AL O9K F=9JDQ AEHGKKA:D= >GJ F=A?@:GJK LG DGGC GML >GJ GL@=J O@=F F=A?@:GJ@GG< O9K KG >MDD G> H=GHD= O= F=N=J K9O GJ ;GMD< F=N=J LG CFGO  " $ "  )  )1  AFKMJ9F;= 9?=FL 9F< GMJ ;9J AFKMJ9F;= 9?=FL GMJ F=O 9< DGO=J ;JAE= J9L= AF $D "=JJALG 6= ;=JL9AF L@9L :JAF?AF?  9F<  9H9JLE=FL ;GEHD=P=K LG 29F /9:DG 9JL=JA9D OADD GFDQ AF;J=9K= FGAK= LJ9>>A; 9F< ;JAE= 6= 9DKG L@9L ;J=9LAF? :AC= D9F=K GF 29F /9:DG AK LGL9DDQ MFF=;=KK9JQ J=;=FLDQ >AFAK@=< .@DGF= &J==FO9Q @9K KGDN=< :AC= /=J@9HK QGM 9J= 9O9J= G> 9DJ=9>A; ;GFJGE GMJ @GE= <AF9DDQ 9:D= LG :=9MLA>MD KMFK=LK >JGE GMJ :9;C Q9J< GF *=9JF=Q 3@GM?@  )  $ ) ( " + $ , ) ) L@GM?@L G> 9 KAP :MADLAF? HD9FK >GJ $D "=JJALG 8GM E9Q HD=9KAF? 9 =9?=J <=N=DGH=JK LG :JAF? EGJ= EGF=Q AFLG $D "=JJALG :ML QGM E9Q MH MKAF? L@9L AF;J=9K=< J=N=FM= LG H9Q >GJ EGJ= HGDA;=E=F LG <=9D OAL@ ;JAE= 9F< LG KGDN= LJ9>>A; 9F< H9JCAF? HJG:D=EK .J OGJK= QGM E9Q 9 ?GG< KGDA< F=A?@:GJK D=9NAF? $D "=JJALG AF K=9J;@ G> 9 ;GEEMFALQ L@9L N9DM=K IM9DALQ G> DA>= GN=J IM9FLALQ G> L9P J=N=FM= 2AF;=J=DQ 2;9JD=LL '=HOGJL@ ,9JADQF ---PAGE BREAK--- 5 2=B 8>7,25 !.5*72. !27=C !B /*625B 58?.< <6*55 =8@7 8/ %2,1687- 77.A =8 ,1*70.< =8 $*+58 $5*7 @255 782<. 9855>=287 9*;4270 !B /*625B 52?.- 27 %2,1687- 77.A 7.*;5B  7 186. <6*55 ,125-;.7 <.728;< @18 .738B 0*;-.7270 95*B270 5.2<>;.5B @*54270 -;2?270 =8 /;2.7-5B 58,*5 68?.- /;86 =8 9855>=287 $855>=287 ,1*70.< 9;898<.- 27 $*+58 $5*7 @255 9*;4270 :>*52=B 9;8+5.6< 27/*7=< <.728;< 52?270 =8 988; :>*52=B 1201 5.?.5 8/ @2=1 2-5270 52?. 87 85>6+2* *;5<87 $*+58 .270 <8 ,58<. =8 $*+58 ,*778= 27,;.*<270 989>5*=287 2< 782=270 >71.*5=1B >7<.==5270 $*;4270 !B 87. 8=1.; 7.201+8; /;86 ,;8@-270 12==270 ,8552-270 @2=1 @1.7 +*,4270 >9 8; -8270 ) 8/ 6B /*625B 68;. /27- * 8/ 9*;4270 87 +58,4< 7B 95*7< ,866.;,2*5 8; .A9*7<287 27,5>-. 9*;4270 *558@*7,.< 9852,. 9>+52, @8;4< 78=2,.- 27 * 27 ?*7-*52<6 .A9*7<287 @255  86/8;= >25-270< 1201.; =1*7  8/ @2=1 <6*55 ,866>72=B '1.B @8>5- +58,4*0. <>77B -.7<2=B ,866.;,2*5 +>25-270< @8>5- *5<8 +;270 68;. 6.,1*72,*5 782<. 8+78A28>< 8-8;< >05B 5262= *--270 +24. 5*7.< 9;8=;>-270 95*=/8;6< 87 $*+58 @255 <688=1 /58@ 87 $*+58 .738B = 6*B =8 =B92,*55B 6*4. -;2?270 68;. >795.*<*7= * 27 ,870.<=287 *5870 *--2=287 8/ 6*55 !B /*625B =8 269;8?.6.7=< =8 ,866>72=B -8 78= =1274 =12< 95*7 2< 088- ,866>72=B 2= @255 $*+58 27=8 * 1201 -.7<2=B C87. 2< >7/;2.7-5B =8 <2705. /*625B = @255 * 269*,= 87 186. 9;89.;=B @.55 '1*74 B8> B8>; ,87<2-.;*=287 ';>5B .527-* ---PAGE BREAK--- September 11, 2014 City of El Cen-ito I 0890 San Pablo Ave. El Cerrito CA 94530 Attn: Melanie Mintz Re: Final Draft San Pablo Area Specific Plan, June 2014 Richmond. CA 94804 My wife and I are long time residents of Richmond Annex and live in an area that will be directly impacted by the proposed San Pablo Area Specific Plan. On a daily basis we use the services tltat are provided in the San Pablo Area and frequent the loeal retail and entertainment establishments. The San Pablo Area has many specific qualities and attributes which define the neighborhood chamcter and which make this place special in the Bay Area and provides for a very desirable area to live within. We are very concerned about the proposed San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan and find many of the elements and the overall larger scale of development that would be allowed wtder this plan as inappropriate for this community and WQuld have significant negative impact on the specific qualities and att1i butes which define this neighborhood. The specific fonn based code itt this plan would create street ftonts that do not reflect the variety and diversity oftbe community and whi·ch would not foster the neighborhood qualities that sbould be sought by any plan for the are·a. The proposed building height limits would obscure the present scenic vistas from the users and residentS in the lower elevations. ultimately reducing dte quality of life for the residents as well as reduce home values for these areas. With reduced scenic views, users and reside/lis uf the San Pablo Area would have a sense of place and therefore their experie,nces would not be unique 10 EJ Cerrito, bul it would be as if they were in any Bay Area city, much like the Bay St!reet development in Enwyville lacks a sense of place. The plan should be commended for attempting to improve the traffic in this oorridor dtrough improved streetscapes, with better focus on pedestrian and bicycle needs, however, tlte increased demand that the increased density would create, is likely to offset any gains made through the improved streets. Even under existing conditions and density, the current demands for access to the San Pablo Avenue Area create objectionable traffic in the local neighborhoods, such as the Richmond Annex, that receive traffic as it diverts from the already overloaded feeder, or Gateway Streets, such as Cenh·al A venue. [n particular the recent improvements the San Pablo Area between Central and Fairmont reflect the historic character of this area and respect the human scale development that makes this area so welcoming. Thts histone area needs to be protected in the Pfan. It appears that the authors of ---PAGE BREAK--- the report appreciate the values of this area as well. as it. and not the future development under this plan. is presented on the report cover. We request that you revise the proposed San Pablo Area Specific Plan to reduce the out-of-scale development guidelines proposed and put forth a proposal that would be consistent with Alternali••e 3: Mil1gatinn ofSignijicant Unavoidable Impact.<. as presented in dte ElR. Sincerely, ---PAGE BREAK--- September 11, 2014 El Cerrito City Council members; Melanie Mintz, Planning Director San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan 10890 San Pablo Ave. El Cerrito, CA 94530 Dear El Cerrito City Council members and Melanie Mintz: We recently moved to El Cerrito and have been impressed with the neighborhoods, city services, and public transportation. I often walk to and along San Pablo Avenue, as well as drive the Avenue regularly. Unfortunately I was not here for previous community workshops and meetings on the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan so my comments are based on reading the various public documents. I agree with the concept of higher density multi-use buildings along San Pablo, with residential units above and commercial on the ground floor. I also agree with the goal of encouraging the use of transit facilities and walking. However, there are two points that I feel are misguided and based on faulty or unsupported premises. 4/ 02)6!4%  Based Code and elsewhere] by deliberately making driving and parking in and through El Cerrito more difficult. Many places [Transect Zones, TOHIMU, TOMIMU, Parking Adjustments (2.05.09.05), Complete Streets, Shift Mode, etc.] tout pedestrians, transit users, and especially bicyclists while reducing parking requirements, narrowing traffic lanes, and making driving more crowded and difficult. The assumption, which is not documented as far as I can find, is that by making driving more inconvenient, parking more difficult, traffic problems more aggravating, and drive-times slower, drivers will decide to give up their cars and use bicycles and public transportation. People who believe this may never have driven San Pablo Avenue, at least the Plan seems to be oblivious to the reality of living in the Bay Area. Where is the evidence that inconvenient driving convinces people to give up their cars? Have you personally, anyone on the City Council, anyone in your family, anyone you know, or any of the Planning Consultants exchanged a car for a bicycle? There are some mixed-use residential/commercial buildings along San Pablo Avenue. Do any of those residents not have one or more cars but instead use bicycles? Do traffic planners expect the population of the Bay Area to shrink? Cars in the future may be smaller and more energy efficient, but is there any evidence that there will be fewer cars, or will there be more cars on the roads in the future than now? Anyone who suggests encouraging bicyclists to use San Pablo Avenue has never walked/driven the Avenue and seen what drivers have to contend with, much less bicyclists. Delivery trucks regularly block one of the travel lanes to offload goods. Will such deliveries be banned by the Plan? The Plan states that redesign will maintain existing curbs, meaning that the Avenue will be the same width then as now. That means buses, regardless of the type of stop, will be blocking the same traffic lanes then as now because the street will be the same width. Narrowing the traffic lanes will simply make driving more dangerous for pedestrians and other drivers. Bicyclists are either traveling to work (I suspect these numbers are very low), to a transit stop (BART, bus stop), or to some retail location. In any case, there is no need to encourage bicycle traffic on San Pablo. Transit stops and retail locations are easily reached by the Oholone Greenway east of San Pablo and Carson which are only one to a few blocks away from retail areas and the Greenway connects directly to BART. 0 : 04/7. 4()3 2%!,)49 ---PAGE BREAK--- 7)4(/54 3500/24).' *534)&)%3 "9 provided because the corridor functions as a main SPA Plan comments! Dean Heyenga! street, with destinations all along the corridor; and more bicycle trips will originate on the corridor and take place entirely on San Pablo Avenue. While the Oholone Greenway parallels the corridor, it does not serve these local-!2%! 3(/24%2 42)03 ; 3tatements are simply not true but are typical Consultant-speak to justify a predetermined goal without data to support it. In short, San Pablo Avenue is a major arterial which conducts traffic to and through El Cerrito. I have driven the Avenue when traff)# 7!3 !4 ! 3%26)#% -9 )4 took four traffic signal cycles to get from Sacramento through Central Ave. southbound. This Plan will : ! 3%.3% !442!#4 02)6!4% ).6%34-%.4 strengthen 0!24.%23()03 !3 )4 I appreciate the many hours and thousands of dollars spent creating this plan. There are many creative and positive elements in it. However, reducing parking requirements and encouraging :42%.$9 "54 4(%9 2%!,)49 create dangerous and unattractive conditions along the Avenue. Sincerely, Dean Heyenga 854 Pomona Ave. El Cerrito, CA 94530 ---PAGE BREAK---           %    4 ,1 11 !-21  02!+(11$# 0 + 11$/ 4(1' (15 .  '  ,1 /26  # 01      5*142 3)*2 #7    !*142         ---PAGE BREAK--- ?6C   %+,69 %6+8 +@+8+?12!C8-2 %6+88381 %+,69 %6+8 %+,69 6 + 90 &3-2798. 88/B 7+49< 9,4/->398= >9 >23= > 89> A/66 :?,63-3D/. 9< >29?12>0?6 -98=3./<+>398 89> 13@/8 >9 3> A366 >9 +66 +6981 %+,69 38 7C 9:38398 =29<> >37/ 0<+7/ 09< 9 >23= 09< >29=/ 90 89A ,/-97381 90 3> 3= +..381 ><+003- -98><96 =>9:6312>= >9 +66 98 +6981 38 (23= 3= 19381 >9 ><+003- 98>9 7+49< 38 %+,69 +<6=98 =97/ 90 7+49< + 7+49< 0<97 $+56+8. >9 A2/8 ><+003- 3= 98 98 89<7+6 >2/C 2/+@36C 3= 19381 >9 792+8 ><+003- :<9,6/7 38 -984?8->398 A3>2 A2+> .98/ (9 312 /8=3>C 29?=381 38 -69=/ :<9B373>C >9 9>2/< A3>2 >9 2312 +6981 %+,69 89> 03> A3>2 5//:381 >2385381 09< ,?36.381= 09< >23= (23= 29?=381 A366 @3/A= 90 7+8C 90 :+<5381 98 >2/3< )=381 >9 ?8./<738/ ./=318 :/<73>>381 D98381 8@3<987/8>+6 -977/8>= 3= 89> A+C >23= =29?6. 98 :6+8 09< ><+003- -2+81/= +6981 %+,69 =29A8 38 >23= :6+8 3> A366 >9 =318303-+8> 09< -3>3D/8= /7/<1/8-C :6+8= ><+003- -98><96 +@381 =2+<381 ><+003- 6+8/= A3>2 3= +8 A+3>381 >9 09< A366 ><+003- ,69-5 -<9==A+65= A366 +6=9 79<+003- ..381 >9 :<9,6/7 3= 2312 ./8=3>C 29?=381 A3>2 799 73B "+8C 38 2+@381 +8 38 ,3-C-6/ .+36C 8/A= 90 90 38-3./8>= 6 &3-2798. .9 89> A+8> >9 +8 +..3>398 >9 ?8A/6-97/ 8/A= $8 90 +66 >23= A366 98 :+<5381 +6981 16C +00/->381 69-+6 '9 A3>2 >23= :6+8 6 &3-2798. A366 8/A 2312<3=/ ,?36.381= A3>2 79<+003- ><+003- ,69-5+1/= >9 ---PAGE BREAK--- 73.,69-5 A+65= 79381 +6981 A3>2 >9 -2+81/ :/<73>>381 E7 >9 90 +66 90 >23= $0 +66 =7+66 9A8/<= +6981 A366 89 6981/< 38 19/= =97/ %963-/ A366 90 A3>2 2312<3=/ ,?36.381= 3> A366 +8 -2+66/81/ 09< 03A9 19 ><+003- A366 +..3>398+6 :966?>398 A2+>E= + 63>>6/ =795/ >9 + ,3-C-63=> 9< #93=/ A9?6. A38.9A= 7312> 2/6: 73>31+>/ :<9,6/7 :?=2381 79<+003- :+<5381 38>9 A29 -9?6. -9?6. =9 -9?6. 7+8C 89> 09<1/> >23= 986C 6 &3-2798. A2C A9<>6/8/-5 >2<9?12 6 &3-2798. =29?6.8E> + :<9,6/7 66 >29=/ 9>2/< 2+8.6/ 381 0<97 6 &3-2798. =29?6. 092/7 A2+> 3= -97381 '97/98/ =97/A2/9 -97/ A3>2 + :6+8 199. 38>/8>398= 73=6/. +@381 63@/. 38 79=> 90 7C 630/ 38 &3-2798. 88/B 09< -2+81/= 03>>381 09< -977?83>3/= (23= >9 + 1<9?: 90 :9:?6+>398 A3>29?> >29?12> >9 9@/<+66 98 A296/ 0 >2/C + ,6+85 >9 0<97 >23= -9?6. A9<5 A3>2 38 89> 635/6C >37/ >9 19 >9 .<+A381 -977?83>C 38@96@/7/8> A3>29?> >9 =63: >23= 90 >2/7 &3-2798.    ---PAGE BREAK---  1':7+3  !+59+2(+7   /39? 1'3  '2 <7/9/3- 94 '(4:9 574548+* '(14 1'3  <4:1* 1/0+ 9./8 1+99+7 94 8:(2/99+* '8 ' 2'99+7 4, 7+)47* /3 4:3)/1 5')0+9 43 9./8 2'99+7  9.'9 1 +77/94 /).243* 33+= 8.4:1* 349 ?43+* '8 '7+'8 8/3)+ '7+39 1'7-+ 1/0+ '01'3* 9 8++28 9.'9 842+ 4, 574548+* 4, 7+8/*+398 /3 114 *439 <'39 247+ )43-+89/43 1+88 5'70/3- 247+ 34/8+ )422+7)/'1 9.'9 )148+7 94 7+8/*+39/'1 *<+11/3-8  94 7+9./30 *+;+1452+39 51'38 ,47 '(14 )42+ :5 ' 574548'1 9.'9 0++58 *+8/7+8 4, 7+8/*+398 /3 2/3* ".'308 ,47 >4:7 '99+39/43 94 9./8 2'99+7 )7')02'-'?/3+.492'/1)42 /).243* 33+= 7+8/*+39 4 ;/7:8 ,4:3* /3 9./8  #+78/43   #/7:8       %    ! ' ! !   ---PAGE BREAK--- Richmond Annex Neighborhood Council Founded 1974 PO Box 5436, Richmond, California 94805 * Neighbors Helping Neighbors * September 15, 2014 El Cerrito City Council members; Melanie Mintz, Planning Director El Cerrito City Hall 10890 San Pablo Avenue El Cerrito, CA 94530 RE Revised Comments on the Draft San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan (SPASP) and related EIR Dear El Cerrito City Council members: We have met with the Richmond Planning Department and it was agreed that the proposed land use designation for the Richmond Annex side of San Pablo Avenue be changed to a different category (lower height and mass) for the one-parcel 9::E 06C .67AD K:CJ: 8DBB:G8>6A HIG>E, entirely abutting residential property (90% of which are single-family homes). We concur with this and we will be working with staff to effect an attractive and high quality form to greatly improve our side of San Pablo Avenue. The special nature of this commercial area requires Specific Plan definition not found in the currently proposed 2014 San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan. It was well-defined in the 2009 SPASP (Volume I, Chapter 4, p. 82), as a result of numerous well-attended community meetings during a period of two full years. These factors affect height, rear setback, parking requirements, permissible types of business operation, and other significant factors (RANC letters submitted on 5-8-14, 11-18-13, 9-30-09, and 4-30-09). Bay Area newspapers have named El Cerrito and Richmond Annex as stable and desirable living areas in the greater San Francisco Bay Area, citing our ethnic and economic diversity and healthy environment. We believe that increased housing density will overcrowd our area, sacrificing long-range stability for potential short-range revenueSoverbuild and leave town. II68=:9 6G: />8=BDC9 CC:M ,:><=7DG=DD9 !DJC8>AVH 8DBB:CIH G:<6G9>C< 2014 DRAFT Plan and EIR, as it affects both El Cerrito and Richmond Annex residents. We believe the proposed SPASP should properly reflect the best interests of all residents and property owners, rather than serving a uniformity standard. Established neighborhoods in El Cerrito and Richmond Annex are typified by mixed zoning, which achieves the type of housing and commercial balances intended in the General Plan. As stated policy, the Annex Council strongly believes in working with both cities toward goals common to the best interests of all. It is surely preferable for both City and residents (and for developers) to have a consistent, relevant and technically workable Plan, which, as its stated policy proclaims, will sustain established neighborhoods. Sincerely, Mary Selva, President Cc: Melanie Mintz, Planning Director Attachments: Revised RANC Comments for the SPASP and EIR 1 of 13 ---PAGE BREAK--- I. Land Use Regulations It has come to our attention that the Land Use Regulations for the Midtown District and the Downtown and Uptown Districts are too liberal. Some of the Use Classifications, as proposed under the SPASP, would not be appropriate for San Pablo Ave. There are some businesses that need a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). WHAT IS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT? A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) allows a city or county to consider special uses which may be essential or desirable to a particular community, but which are not allowed as a matter of right within a zoning district, through a public hearing process. A conditional use permit can provide flexibility within a zoning ordinance. Another traditional purpose of the conditional use permit is to enable a municipality to control certain uses which could have detrimental effects on the community (Neighborhood Action Group v. County of Calaveras (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 1176). Consideration of a CUP is a discretionary act. A CUP application tendered by a project proponent is considered at a public hearing and, if approved, is generally subject to a number of pertinent conditions to ensure the appropriateness of the business use at that particular location and protection from negative effects to the residential neighborhoods. Depending on local ordinance requirements, hearings are typically held by a board of zoning or planning commission. The owners of property near the site are sent advance notice of the date, time, and place of the hearing. The types of business uses that typically require a CUP are Clubs and Lodges, &DHE>I6A T!A>C>8H U 08=DDAH C>B6A ):CC:AH Auto Dealerships, Auto Repair, Banks, Commercial Recreation (Large Scale), Bars/Night Clubs/Lounges, Fast Food Restaurants, Full Service Restaurants with Alcohol Sales, Convenience Stores, Grocery Stores, Liquor Stores, Medical and Dental Offices, Retail Sales (Large Format), Tobacco Sales, Tattoo Parlors, Theaters, Outdoor Storage, and Recycling Processing Facilities. An Administrative Use Permit is not good enough. Adult Business Establishments are no longer permitted on San Pablo Avenue or within any of their commercial districts in the City of Richmond. They are, however, allowed in some of their industrial districts with a conditional use permit. The existing adult bookstore facing El Cerrito on San Pablo Avenue in Richmond has become a legal non-conforming use and cannot expand. El Cerrito should follow suit and prohibit adult business establishments along San Pablo Ave. II. Aesthetics / View Blockage of Desirable Vistas / Building Heights The pGDEDH:9 or 5-stories building height for the El Cerrito Midtown Area would dramatically exceed other commercial buildings on adjoining properties. To get a better perspective of building heights, please see attachment. Because El Cerrito and Richmond Annex are primarily single-family residential neighborhoods, the large bulk and scale 7:8DB:H DK:GEDL:G>C< ;DG I=>H 6G:6 !DBE6I>7>A>IN >C J>A9>C< 086A: HI6I:H T KD>9 9>;;:G:C8:H >C 7J>A9>C< H86A: 6nd 8=6G68I:G 7:IL::C 9:K:ADEB:CIH DC 69?D>C>C< ADIHU 4: find the dramatic increase in bulk and scale, particularly the 55-foot height, to be incompatible to the surrounding commercial area and established residential neighborhoods. F6?E6 D96 >2H:>E> 3E:=5:?8 96:89D :C 6B<6=6I 2?5 =32?I On San Pablo Avenue the maximum building height is 38K =32?I. Thirty-6:89D 766D :C B62C@?23=6 2?5 would be more appropriate for the Midtown Area on the El Cerrito side, rather than 55 feet. The Midtown Area is located in the middle of a major view corridor and has an unparalleled view directly out through the Golden Gate, where residents on El Cerrito slopes have a desirable Bay view. This is a unique and irreplaceable scenic resource of world-class value. There is no major necessity to place tall buildings in an area in direct-line-of-site of considerable El Cerrito neighborhoods, which would affect their property values. Likewise, Richmond Annex hillside residents have a dramatic view of the El Cerrito Hills that they strongly desire and consider of great value as well. These types of tall buildings with a strong urban form, as outlined in the SPASP, will have a negative effect on the quality of life in El Cerrito and Richmond Annex and block views. Views are always an issue and are always contentious. El Cerrito residents who bought their properties with a view, paid extra for it. So did Richmond Annex hillside residents. They should not be resigned to the loss. As the population grows, it should become even more of a priority to have a policy of protection. Their views merit protection. Over the past few years, a scattering of cities across the country, particularly on the West Coast, have taken on the issue of view protection. Santa Barbara, Belvedere (a bedroom community north of San Francisco), and Tiburon, a town adjacent to Belvedere with Bay views, among several others in California have enacted rules to ensure that Bay views are not obscured by tall buildings. 2 of 13 ---PAGE BREAK--- The differing approaches to view protection reflect the fact that zoning ordinances are controlled by local authorities, not the federal government or the states. And rules and regulations vary tremendously. While cities often provide for open spaces, and codify building heights and setbacks to try to protect these Bay views, they know that they cannot guarantee protection of :K:GNDC:VH K>:L However, establishing reasonable building heights has made a big difference in protecting most of these views as best as they possibly can. People moved to El Cerrito for the views S I=6IVH one of the major attractions. Homeowners believe the loss of a view risks reduction in property values. It is the responsibility of the City to respect that and not allow obstruction by permitting such tall buildings. If the City builds a fortress along San Pablo Avenue :DKC 8@:?8 D@ >2<6 D96 B6C:56?DC 766= enclosed or blocked in and obstruct valuable views. Factors to Consider in Evaluating Building Height Urban Form/Community Character Will additional height change community character in undesirable ways? R Dwarf other important features of the natural and built environment? R Detract from the desirable view of the El Cerrito Hills and Golden Gate Bridge? Visual/View Impacts Will additional height block views of important features (e.g. El Cerrito Hills and Golden Gate Bridge)? Human Scale Can the building be designed to establish a human scale? How will additional height affect the sunlight on key pedestrian/open space features? The RANC recommends that you maximize your housing opportunities next to the Bart Stations (E.C. Plaza and Del Norte), and retain your major view corridor in the Midtown and other areas. The Midtown Area is severely deficient in commercial development and already has sufficient housing in this area. III. Historical Preservation If San Pablo Avenue between Central and Fairmount in El Cerrito has 1-to 2-story buildings, why is the SPASP allowing up to 7J>A9>CH 6G:6 1=>H 6G:6 H=DJA9 7: EG:H:GK:9 6H 6 =>HIDG>86A 9>HIG>8I 1=>H >H L=:G: #A !:GG>ID L6H born, formerly called the town of Rust. There should be an historical analysis done on this block. A different type of building form should be carefully crafted for this historical area, rather than the strong urban form prescribed under the SPASP. IV. Form-Based Codes1 The building forms and articulations outlined in the proposed 2014 SPASP have a strong urban form and appear bold and overpowering. REAR /SIDE SETBACKS adjacent to Residential uses - Any infill high rise development should be located so that it would not interfere with the light, open space, and building safety buffer that is usually provided for residential homes, especially at their rear and side yards. Thus, these developments need to respect a 10V-15V rear setback from any adjacent commercial/residential property, not zero setbacks. The daylight plane provision adopted in the Albany Zoning Ordinance addresses access to direct light, including indirect light, and preventing loss of privacy in a much better way and should be seriously considered. And most appropriately, >I EGDK>9:H 6 G:6G H:I768@ in addition to the daylight plane (See below). It is important to remember that form-based codes are rare in the Bay Area and California as a whole. As for the cities that do have it, form-based codes are located within a small segment of their cities (e.g. a one or two block area or just within their downtown areas). California planners have exercised careful consideration when pondering the use of form-based codes. The form-based codes approach is not always an ideal fit for certain areas. Form-based codes can ignore the political reality of a City Council giving up discretionary control over projects. Form-based codes is a land development regulation that fosters predictable built results. Since the design parameters in a form-based code are specific, there is very little room for negotiation at the time the project comes forward, and the public may feel that they lack a voice in the most important part of their commercial districts. We all want a fairer, quicker review process, but are we forgetting the essence of community-based planningSinvolving the public in individual (case-by-case) decisions made in their own downtown or their commercial neighborhoods? These decisions are basically being made upfront under this Specific Plan. Once again, since the design parameters in a form-based code are so specific, it leaves very little room for modifications. 4: C::9 ID :68= 6G:6VH HE:8>;>8  The form-based conundrum could be modified to employ more essential elements of organic urbanism, such as specific uses, appropriate density, design context, reasonable parking requirements, and most importantly a local review (i.e. public hearing and right-of-appeal). 1     !   3 of 13 ---PAGE BREAK--- A76CNVH "6NA><=I .A6C: .GDK>H>DC 4 of 13 PLANNING AND ZONING 20.24.070 20.24.070 Setbacks With Daylight Planes. A. Interior Property Lines Abutting Residential District Boundaries. The minimum setback where an interior lot line of a property in a Solano Commercial or San Pablo Commercial District abuts a residential district boundary shall be five feet on the side: I . The minimum setback at the rear shall be one of the following two options: 1) Twenty (20) feet in height at a point ten ( 1 0) feet back from the property line, plus a forty-five (45) degree daylight plane to the maximum permitted height, or 2) Twelve (12) feet in height at the property line, then, horizontally to a point ten (1 0) feet from the property line, plus thirty-five (35) degrees from vertical daylight plane to the maximum permitted height. (See subsection 20.24.070.A., Figure l.a and l.b.) If there is a difference in grade planes between two adjacent parcels, the Community Development Director shall determine appropriate grade plane to be used for daylight plane calculation. No projections shall be allowed in the area between the daylight planes and rear property line. Usable open spaces located on top of the structure, within ten (1 0) feet of a residential district boundary, shall have a solid fence or wall six feet in height. The combined height of the structure and the wall shall comply with daylight plane requirements of this Code. GROUND PLANE 20.24.070 FIGURE lA SETBACK Figure l .a 2105 Rev.Ord.Supp.l0/09 ---PAGE BREAK--- V. Central Avenue Made Worse Central Avenue between San Pablo Avenue and the I-80 Freeway experiences major traffic back-ups and heavy congestion daily, which worsens on the weekend. A little over half of this distance lies within El Cerrito, with the remaining distance in Richmond. With the exception of commercial development on Pierce Street in Richmond Annex, both sides of Central Avenue consist of residential areas comprised primarily of single family homes. A proposal by the Contra Costa County Traffic Authority to temporarily reduce the weekend traffic congestion was recently approved by the Richmond City Council, with certain conditions recommended by the Richmond Annex Neighborhood Council Traffic Committee. In addition, a developer has informally proposed a large residential housing complex for the Dolan Lumber site on Central Avenue. The RANC submitted specific guidelines to reduce the bulk and scale prior to drafting a formal set of plans. The SPASP proposes high density and building heights of up to 65 feet on both sides of Central Avenue between San Pablo Avenue and Belmont Avenue, which would cause significant and unforeseen additional traffic congestion and restricted views, and would be totally out of character for the surrounding El Cerrito neighborhoods. Several high-intensity uses (Pacific East Mall, Costco Warehouse and Discount Gas Station, Pt. Isabel Regional Park) are already huge draws to this area, contributing major traffic problems on Central Avenue. This is including the primary I-80 and I-580 Central Avenue Interchanges accessed by El Cerrito, Richmond Annex, and Albany Hill residents, in addition to the regional clientele enroute to the El Cerrito Plaza Shopping Center, all of which depend on this considerably overburdened corridor. In conclusion, Central Avenue is already overburdened and cannot handle high-density developments with its major traffic congestion. VI. Noise Pollution and Odors With an increase in density and expanded commercial buildings backed up to homes with rear setbacks reduced to only five feet, residents would be directly impacted by noise produced by refrigeration units, fans and other mechanical equipment. Obnoxious odors from exhaust air ducts and dumpsters would be objectionable and hard to avoid. VII. Cumulative Effects The EIR should include up-to-date traffic counts on all major intersections, and analysis of cumulative and long-term traffic impacts associated with the proposed developments. The EIR should also analyze the incremental effects of past developments, the effects of other current developments, and the effects of future developments under the proposed development standards outlined in the SPASP. 5 of 13 ---PAGE BREAK--- VIII. Parking Impacts The information provided below, summarizes existing zoning code sections establishing parking standards in the Counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Mateo, San Francisco, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma. All of the cities surveyed include parking standards for retail and office uses. Standards are typically a specified number of parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor areas in a development. Average commercial or office minimums by place type were lowest in the regional centers (3.3 for retail and 2.3 for office), and averaged around 4 spaces per 1,000 feet for all other place types (from 3.8 for office to 4.2 for retail). Retail Minimums for retail range from 1.0 to 6.25 spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area, with the average requirement being around 4.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor space. Only two cities, San Francisco and Gilroy, include maximums for retail parking citywide. Special District Reductions Oakland and San Jose have no minimum requirement for retail in their Central Business District and Downtown zoning areas. The average requirement in special districts for retail is 3.1 spaces per 1,000 square feet, nearly 1 space per 1,000 square feet less than the citywide standards. Office Minimums for office range from 0.7 to 6.66 spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area, with the average requirement around 3.8 spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor space. Only three cities include maximums for office parking: San Francisco, which varies; Gilroy at 3.6 spaces per 1,000 square feet; and Pleasant Hill at 4.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet. Special District Reductions Oakland has no minimum requirement for office in its Central Business District. The average requirement in special districts for office is 3.1 spaces per 1,000 square feet, only less than the average for citywide requirements. Conclusions: There is a wide range of parking policies in the cities of the Bay Area. Almost all cities, with the exceptions of downtown San Jose, downtown Oakland, and certain areas of San Francisco, have required parking minimums for residential units, commercial parking facilities, or other transport options; all cities have parking minimums for non residential (retail and office uses), typically determined based on the square feet of a development. The proposed SPASP recommends the same parking requirements for ALL commercial uses (blanket approach), which we strongly believe is the wrong approach for San Pablo Ave. We all know there are certain intensive uses that generate a higher demand for parking, such as fast-food restaurants, full-service restaurants, grocery stores, convenience stores, liquor stores, banks, medical offices, church assemblies, recreational facilities, membership organizations, clubs, motels/other lodging places, etc... All cities in the Bay Area recognize this difference and as a result, they set their parking requirements according to the type of commercial use. The RANC recommends this as well. Reducing off-street commercial parking availability only encourages vehicles to park in residential neighborhoods, which is already happening in Berkeley, creating circulation problems, parking shortages, and hurting the businesses. Use of residential streets for the overflow of commercial patron parking should be avoided. If the current minimum commercial parking requirements cause more parking to be built than would be demanded by either the renters in the housing market or the retailers or office users, then both Richmond and El Cerrito could include a parking waiver provision with a conditional use permit. We would recommend a parking survey, which would be required for projects requesting a waiver for any parking required under the Zoning Ordinance or SPASP ILD 8>I>:H 8DJA9 EG:E6G: 6 T.6G@>C< 0JGK:NU Instructions and Guidelines. IX. Traffic Congestion and Diversion / Street Reconfiguration Reducing the speed limit to 25 mph and adding bike lanes, large bus platforms, flex parking lanes, and only two parking spaces provided in between each built-in planter along San Pablo Avenue, as proposed under the SPASP, would create parking shortages and hurt the businesses. This would divert traffic onto adjacent residential streets, creating circulation problems. Richmond Street in El Cerrito and Carlson Boulevard in Richmond Annex would more than likely become the alternative routes, especially during the AM and PM peak hours. Both upgraded Ohlone Greenway and Carlson Boulevard, parallel to San Pablo Avenue, are already used as the bicycle highways and are sufficient for bicyclists. 6 of 13 ---PAGE BREAK--- X. Flex Parking Lane or Parklets in Parking Lane The proposed flex parking lane or parklets in parking lanes used for outdoor dining is undesirable, compromising the health, safety and welfare of the community, further creating on-street parking shortages along the curb. We prefer the recessed outdoor dining areas, as recommended in / ,!VH San Pablo Avenue Slide Presentation, dated 11-18-13, and provided below. Building is set back from the sidewalk to accommodate outdoor seating, making the pedestrian experience more inviting. This is a wonderful example of outdoor restaurant seating. The area is kept clean and neat with well-decorated plants and colorful umbrellas. Notice building is recessed from sidewalk to accommodate outdoor dining, leaving plenty of room for pedestrians to pass by. Recessed outdoor seating provides a safe & pleasant dining experience, separated by pedestrian passerby. 7 of 13 ---PAGE BREAK--- Another great example of where the building is set back enough to provide a recessed area for outdoor seating, separated by the pedestrian right-of-away. Tasteful, neat and organized. XI. Health and Air Quality Impacts We believe a significant amount of traffic increase and congestion will result from increased housing and regional development, forcing vehicles to idle. Why is idling a big problem? Idling produces pollution. Idling creates more pollution that is released into our environment, contributing higher levels of smog and poor air quality. Idling affects our health. Idling produces higher levels of particulates and affects our health. Children, the elderly, pets, and those with respiratory problems are most sensitive to poor air quality, especially those who live along major thoroughfares or for those eating at an outdoor café along thoroughfares. (Outdoor air pollution is primarily caused by motor vehicle emissions, some of which are toxic. These emissions include powerful respiratory irritants that not only aggravate asthma, but, as recent studies have shown, can actually cause children and the elderly to develop asthma in the first placeSref. American Lung Association.) Idling affects our environment. The extra pollution created by idling contributes to climate change. Idling wastes fuel and money. Idling a vehicle gets you 0 miles per gallon fuel economy. Ten minutes of idling a day wastes an average of 27gallons of fuel a year. Creation of Idle-Free Zones: Designated community idle-free zones, areas where idling is particularly discouraged, are becoming popular. Most of these zones have been established at municipal facilities and schools, but other popular locations include hospitals, daycare centers, parks, recreation centers, and most importantly residential neighborhoods. We need to seriously discourage idling on San Pablo Avenue. This means we should not allow the level-of-service to deteriorate to E or F. XII. Public Safety Concerns The high-density development, reduced speed limit, reduced commercial parking, bike lanes and other changes proposed under the SPASP for San Pablo Avenue will all inevitably contribute to traffic congestion, especially at certain times of the day. RANC is reasonably concerned about the effect this congestion will have on emergency response vehicles, which must use San Pablo Avenue to reach destinations in a hurry. Fire, ambulance and police vehicles may have to use narrower side streets in Richmond Annex and El Cerrito, causing delays, excessive noise, and risks to residents and pedestrians. These vehicles will take extra time to reach Central Avenue, Fairmount Avenue, and Carlson Boulevard. With business patrons parking on the narrower side streets, these emergency vehicles may have no choice except to park in the middle of the street, blocking traffic in both directions. 8 of 13 ---PAGE BREAK--- XIII. Level of Service (LOS) While most of the direct traffic impacts from local land use intensification will fall upon Regional Routes such as San Pablo Avenue, Central Avenue, Cutting Boulevard, Carlson Boulevard, and Fairmount Avenue, it is equally important that such activity not burden the basic route system and thus avoid deteriorated level-of-service for this major thoroughfare and its signalized intersections. The City should make a committed effort to reduce traffic congestion and improve the efficiency and safety of its local street system, monitor traffic conditions on a systematic basis, and develop programs to maintain reasonable level-of-service standards. Incremental high-density growth along San Pablo Avenue, Central Avenue, Carlson Boulevard, Fairmount Avenue, Moeser Lane, Potrero Avenue, and Cutting Boulevard can potentially overburden this regional route and cause traffic to filter into our local collector and arterial residential streets, if not maintained at a reasonable level-of-service. The operation of transportation facilities (freeways, roadways, intersections) is 8A6HH>;>:9 >C  TA:K:A-of-H:GK>8:U 86I::H *:K:A of service (LOS) is defined in terms of a letter grade ranging from A to F. LOS A is the best level of operation, representing free flow conditions, and LOS F is the worst level of operation, representing excessive delays, long vehicle queues, and generally intolerable conditions. Level of Service Description A No congestion. All vehicles clear in a single signal cycle. B Very light congestion. All vehicles clear in a single signal cycle. C Light congestion, occasional back-ups on some approaches or turn pockets. D Significant congestion on some approaches, but intersection is functional. Vehicles required to wait through more than one cycle during short peaks. E Severe congestion with some long back-ups. Blockage of intersecrion may occur. Vehicles are required to wait through more than one cycle. F Total breakdown. Stop and go conditions. Since most intersections in El Cerrito operate at LOS C or better, the City should strive to maintain LOS C on San Pablo Ave. Since all City operated intersections and residential streets (excluding major thoroughfares) operate at LOS A or B, the City should also strive to maintain LOS A and B on those streets. The City of El Cerrito policy calls for achievement of LOS D or better conditions in its current General Plan. Moving from LOS D to LOS E & F, as proposed in the SPASP, would be a significant negative impact! Our local residential collector streets and potentially our arterial streets would then shift from LOS A to LOS D or E. This would also be a significant negative impact and unacceptable to the residential neighborhoods throughout Richmond Annex and El Cerrito. Portions of San Pablo Avenue in El Cerrito (Del Norte Bart area), and Pierce Street and Central Avenue in Richmond Annex can be as bad as LOS E or F conditions, especially during the AM and PM peak hours or during the weekends when the high- intensity uses (Del Norte Bart area, Pacific East Mall, Costco, and Pt. Isabel Regional Park) reach critical mass, or when an incident on I-80 results in a higher-than-normal diversion of Regional traffic onto San Pablo Avenue. As mentioned in the SPASP, the proposed LOS Standards for the SPASP would allow the level-of-service to deteriorate to LOS E, and LOS F would be acceptable to ensure non-auto goals are achieved for San Pablo Avenue and Central Avenue.U LOS E means severe congestion with some long back-ups. LOS F means gridlock, forced or breakdown flow. Both T#U 6C9 T$U are unacceptable levels-of-service. The non-auto goals in Berkeley have not been achieved, despite their best efforts. Traffic conditions have deteriorated and parking is deficient. This is something that we do not want to emulate. 9 of 13 ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Improvements for New Development Improvements to the circulation system consisting of arterial roadways, intersections, traffic signal improvements and projects needed to accommodate new development need to be addressed. The City should impose Major Thoroughfare Impact Fees to maintain LOS C, which may require the payment of a fee as condition of approval of a final map, or as a condition of issuing a building permit for purposes of helping to defray the actual or estimated cost of improving major roadways, traffic signals and other modifications. Such fees, if imposed either as a condition of subdivision approval or issuance of a building permit should be considered to mitigate on or off-site project specific traffic impacts for a new development, particularly a large one. RANC recommendation: Establish a citywide achievement goal of LOS C for major thoroughfares (a maximum congestion threshold). The City should not allow San Pablo Avenue to deteriorate to LOS E or F. The City should require mitigation for significant LOS impacts, if streets and/or intersections begin to deteriorate to LOS E or F. RANC recommendation: Establish a citywide achievement goal of LOS A and B for residential streets. Again, the City should not allow our collector and arterial residential streets to deteriorate to LOS C, D or E. Currently, the vast majority of local residential streets operate at LOS A - B. The City should discourage cut-through traffic on residential streets, maintain the existing system of collector streets, and, where necessary, employ traffic management techniques to minimize the speed of vehicles traveling through residential neighborhoods. The EIR needs to address the impacts of congestion on the livability of the established residential neighborhoods. This means the EIR needs to address not only the health impacts, but also the effects on quality of life, doing business in our cities, and the negative impacts it would have on property values. Since traffic congestion slows all movements of goods and services (including emergency services), as well as the public, how is this an improvement for the community? The proposed LOS standards in the Draft Plan need to be adequately addressed in the EIR. Better solutions are needed to prevent deterioration of the current LOS. El Cerrito should try to avoid the pattern that has become chaotic and a permanent condition in Berkeley. In conclusion, the LOS E and F standards proposed for the entire Avenue would negatively affect the livability of established residential neighborhoods and impact our businesses. XIV. Commercial vs. Residential Development Commercial development generates more local sales tax revenues than residential and brings in much needed jobs for local residents. Areas along San Pablo Avenue may be developed for either commercial businesses or for residential multi-unit projects. Before any major or long-term changes to San Pablo Avenue are considered, it therefore becomes necessary to conduct the appropriate feasibility studies to determine which type of development is a better fit for the area. There are several types of these studies, such as cultural, economic, market and real estate, and all three types are relevant for inclusion in the SPASP. In a cultural feasibility study, the project's alternatives are evaluated for their impact on the local environment, which includes long established single-family neighborhoods. An economic feasibility study assesses the positive/negative economic consequences of the project/development, and includes a cost/benefit analysis. Market and real estate feasibility studies focus on the importance of, or the need for, commercial businesses or residential unit projects in the selected area, and is used to determine if the project is economically reasonable and cost-effective. For San Pablo Avenue, all three types of feasibility studies should be made for five, ten, twenty and more years in advance to assess the cultural and economic value of the proposed changes to businesses, adjacent neighborhoods, and transportation pathways. XV. Bicycle Lanes AC Transit is very concerned about bicycle lanes conflicting with auto and bus lanes, as expressed in their comment letter to the Draft San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan (SPASP) and related EIR. XVI. Water Service EBMUD is very concerned about water service, as expressed in their comment letter to the Draft San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan (SPASP) and related EIR. According to EBMUD, this particular area is served by the Central Water Pressure Zone G0A with a service elevation range between 0 to 100 feet. The proposed building heights are ID To support the plumbing and provide required fire flows, the Central Water Pressure may not be adequate. An alternative may be having the project install private pumps within the proposed building to supply the upper stories. Water main extensions and off-site pipeline >BEGDK:B:CIH 6I 9:K:ADE:GVH :ME:CH: B6N 7: G:FJ>G:9 ID H:GK: I=>H >C9>K>9J6A EGD?:8I ID B::I 9DB:HI>8 9:B6C9H 6C9 flow requirements. XVII. User Friendly The SPASP is still too complicated and difficult for the public and private users to download and comprehend. The plan will need to be simplified in its delivery. Perhaps an end summary with charts may help. 10 of 13 ---PAGE BREAK--- Building Height Perspectives As verified with city records; building heights as measured from grade to roof ridgeline) The Vital Building (formerly the Historical El Cerrito Mill & Lumber Building). The building is a perfect fit for shallow lot sizes, abutting single-family homes. 10837 San Pablo at Orchard Ave., Richmond Annex Building height: 25 ft. as verified with City records. Eskaton Hazel Shirley Manor (senior housing) 11025 San Pablo at Madison Ave. El Cerrito Building height: 40 ft. as verified with City records. Village at Town Center (mixed-use building) 10810 San Pablo at Schmidt Lane, El Cerrito Building height: 42 ft. as verified with City records. Del Norte Place (mixed-use building) 11720 San Pablo at Knott Ave., El Cerrito Building height: 45 ft. as verified with City records. 11 of 13 ---PAGE BREAK--- 1800 San Pablo at Delaware Ave., Berkeley (mixed- use building), as shown in the proposed SPASP. Building height: 50 ft. as verified with City records. Unknown location, as shown in the proposed SPASP. 1885 University at MLK, Berkeley (mixed-use building) Building height: 50 ft. for main building; 54 feet to top of penthouses, as verified with City records. 12 of 13 ---PAGE BREAK--- 200 2nd Street, Oakland, as shown in the SPASP. Seventy-five units. Building height: 69 ft. as verified with City records. Proposed strong urban form and building articulation (form-based codes) for San Pablo Avenue. Building is in direct contrast with Single-Family Residentially-Zoned Districts. There is no transition zone, which is atypical in most cities. 13 of 13 ---PAGE BREAK--- tQ k cJ1 S ~ ~b J o A v ~ U-L.- ~ LJ<'J) ~ ~ ~ ~vtc-JI. C!IYI ~ abo~ flu -r s~ feue,Jo Av-e~~ ~ --u~J fiv-e. I. ~-IV) ~ ~u_Qai) I ~ ~ 'a M 01.( c..~s ~ _ I. s~ .A.U1b 0 cJ) J.u ~ ~ rr ~ JJ - ~r fr ~ M o sf 4 ft. t ic_ ()Yl 3 ~ fa. I o J ~ + ~ av- fl!.2_t oj U (vucvfc- ~ wch. t<..Dt~s~~ t-6 i -ft. c5) ~ 0 C4A. beh~~ , J.f., s~ ta.~ + t$ l 'Dct.-t (,lUI" s 1-w -R..t 3 ---PAGE BREAK--- September 8, 20 14 Melanie Mintz Community Development Director El Cerrito City Hall J 0890 San Pablo A venue El Cerrito, CA 94530 Dear Ms. Mintz, Enclosed is a revised version of a letter that I wrote to the editor of The Journal last November about the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan. I haven't tracked the changes to the plan, if any, since then. If my letter is still relevant, I would be grateful if you would include it in the packet of comments you are preparing for the City Council meeting on September 22nd. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Ken Stanton El Cerrito, CA 94530 ---PAGE BREAK--- September 8, 2014 El Cerrito City Council El Cerrito City Hall 10890 San Pablo A venue El Cerrito, CA 94530 Comment on the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Last November 1 read an article in The Journal about the discussion at the El Cerrito City Council of plans for San Pablo Avenue. According to the article, the plans focus on "making circulation changes that would emphasize pedestrians, bicycles and buses as a priority over automobiles." This strikes me as charming, but impractical for many El Cerrito residents. El Cerrito is situated on a hillside, with an elevation of approximately 700 feet from San Pablo A venue to Arlington Boulevard. About 60 percent of El Cerrito residents are over the age of 44. How many of these residents will find bicycles to be a practical mode of daily transportation up and down the hillside? Bus transportation up and down the hillside was severely curtailed in 2003 when AC Transit eliminated the .EI Cerrito portion of the 67 bus route from Arlington Boulevard to the El Cerrito Plaza ·BART station. What is the likelihood that AC Transit will restore the El Cerrito portion of this route? San Pablo Avenue is a state highway. It extends from downtown Oakland to State Route 4 at Hercules. It supplements Interstate 80 during peak commute hours and serves as an alternate route when necessary. If the plan being considered by El Cerrito will reduce the capacity of San Pablo Avenue to allow for automobile traffic, this wm create a bottleneck in the middle of a major thoroughfare, and wiJl result jn a major disruption for through traffic, as well as for El Cerrito residents. Local businesses wm lose customers to more accessible shopping districts, JocaJ residents will spend more time commuting each day, and traffic is likely to be pushed onto smaller residential streets. El Cerrito grew up along the old US 40 highway. Many residents were attracted by the accessibility ofthe location to other parts of the Bay Area. The plans being discussed have the flavor of "downtown envy." Perhaps we would do better by finding ways to enhance the natural and historic geography of our city, rather than by trying to imitate other communities. Sincerely, Ken Stanton El Cerrito, CA 94530 ---PAGE BREAK---      $      '      '   $19.1>? ;2 @41 ;A:/58 #B1 85B10 5: 8 E1->? /;:?1/A@5B18E 9E 2-958E 9;B10 41>1 5: C41: # 25B1 # 812@ /;88131 5: @41: # 9;B10 8 - :1C 9;9 5: # 4-B1 7:;C: @41 /5@E 5: B->5;A? 3A5?1? - /4580 - @11:-31> - E;A:3 -0A8@ - :1C # -9 4-5> ;2 @41 1B18;<91:@ ;995@@11 # C>5@1 5: >;81 # 0; 91:@5;: 5@ 8 =A5@1 2>-:78E .11: A:01>0;3 /5@E - 8;:3 @591 1?<5@1 4-B5:3 1D/1881:@ -22;>0-.81 4;A?5:3 @41 .11: <8-3A10 .E 8;C1> :1534.;>5:3 4;A?1 B-8A1? 4534 ;2 E;A:3 2-95851? A:01>C41895:3 .A?5:1??1? - ?1:?1 /;99A:5@E 8521 C4;88E /;41>1 ,41: <1;<81 5: 8 <;8810 5@ @41E @41E 8571 5@ 25:1 @41E 2118 - ?1:?1 ;2 <8-/1 5@ 4-B1 -91:5@51? @41E @41E 3; 18?1C41>1 05:1 ?<1:0 0;88->? !1>@>A01 )@15: ?-50 @41>1? @41>1 @41>1 ;2 @45? 5? .1/-A?1 F;:5:3 9-01 2118 1B5?/1>-@10 8;:18E 8;:3 9-:E ;2 C;A80 .1 1-88E *41E <1;<81 750? E;A:3 -0A8@? C4; 0; 0>5B1 >1-88E .11: ;2 @41?1 @41 852181?? *41E 8;;7 .8-:0 0A88 4;C 9-:E <->75:3 C1 @41 5? '1;<81 0; ,1 :110 35B1 <1;<81 85:31> 5: 8 1:6;E @415> @591 41>1 @591 ;:8E 1 41>1 41>1 9-71? 5@ .>5:3 9;>1 8521 /;991>/5-8 9-71? @41?1 2118 <1;<81 1:@5/5:3 .A?5:1??1? C41>1 <1;<81 ?<1:0 9;:1E # 0; @45:7 @41>1 ?;91 ;2 @41 2;>9 .-?10 /;01 :110 >1B51C <->@5/A8->8E @41 ;2 C5:0;C ?5F1 C1 :110 -88 C5:0;C? .1 ;2 ?A>2-/1 @41 25>?@ 28;;> # @45:7 E;A0 0; C188 85?@1: )@1B1 1D<1>@ 25:1??5:3 @41 01?53: -88 5: -88 # @45:7 5@ 5? 3;;0 @41 @41 A?1 ;2 ?1:?5.81 .571 - E;A:3 C4; 8;B1? .571 @41 0-A34@1> ;2 - 0-0 C4; 8;B1? .571 # C18/;91 ?115:3 - /5@E .1 ?4-<10 ?-21 .571 *45? 5? 5:@13>-8 ;2 .15:3 ;2 - 81-05:3 1031 ?1@@5:3 8 2>;9 ;@41> /5@51? 05?@5:3A5?45:3 A? @41 C1 01?<1>-@18E .1 @41 75:0 ;2 '-31  ;2  ;991:@?)1 ---PAGE BREAK--- @45:3 C1 :110 0; 9-71 ;A>?18B1? - /5@E - /5@E .15:3 3;;0 <1;<81 ;2 -88 -31? "-B5:3 <1;<81 C-87 .571 .A5805:3 @41 5? - ;2 418<5:3 -88 8 @41 1:B5>;:91:@ 5? 5: 85:1 C5@4 95??5;: 1:B5>;:91:@-88E ?;A:0 1/;:;95/-88E ?;A:0 *41 5? - 2;>C->0 (125:1 ?9-88 ;2 @41 52 :110 .1 # A>31 E;A C4;81 41->@108E 5:0;>?1 5@ )5:/1>18E B5>A? 2;A:0 5: @45? 91??-31 41/710 .E CCC -B3   +5>A? (181-?1 '-31  ;2  ;991:@?)1 ---PAGE BREAK---  +36 )1+36819929>7+36-97*    !/6+83/ !38>D #+,69 #6+8 &29?12>= 98 <97 1+36819929>7+36-97 #+,69 #6+8  ?6     C8-2 + 90 $3-2798. 88/B 09<  +7 A366 98 7C 8/312,9<299. 6>29?12 635/ 90 2312 ./8=3>C A+65+,6/ 8/312,9<299.= >2385 ;?+63>C 90 630/ 09< /B3=>381 8/312,9<299.= =29?6. -+ 38@96@/ ><+003- :+<5381 63@/ 98 +8 389<.38+>/ +79?8> 90 ><+003- >9 ,/381 + >9 +<6=98 0C 98 #+,69 A366 >9 2312 90 D997381 .9A8 7C 8+<<9A 6373> 0<97 7:2 >9  7:2 +..381 ,35/ 6+8/= 3= + 83-/ >29?12> 7+8C 38 7+8C #+,69 >2/3< -977?>/ A366 0699.381 =7+66/< 6995381 09< + A+C 297/ #+<5381 A366 +6=9 +8 30 90 29?=/296.= A2/>2/< 0<97 297/9A8/<= 6995381 09< + 9< 90 69-+6 @/8>?<381 38>9 88/B 8/312,9<299.= A9?6. 635/ >9 ><+003- ><+003- .3@/<=398 :6+8= 3= 38>9 +->398 &2+85 C9? 09< C9?< >37/ %38-/23= ,C  AAA+@1-97         %    ! ' ! !   ---PAGE BREAK---  %      8 /39? '2 7+8+3*/3- 2> 57+;/4:8 1+99+7 7+ 94 '80 9.'9 /9 8:(2/99+* '8 ' 2'99+7 4, 7+)47* ,47 /3)1:8/43 /3 4:3)/1 5')0+9 > .42+ /8 14)'9+* 43 (14)0 4, /3 9<4 (14)08 ,742 #'(14 :3*+789'3* 9.'9 1 +77/948 574548+* #'(14 #1'3 '143- #'(14 97';+1/3- 9.+7+43 47 5'89 8+;+7'1 >+'78 43 #'(14 /3 2473/3- +3 74:9+ 94 <470 /3 -7/*14)0 4;/3- 94 349 .+15 '8 9.'9 74:9+ 84:9. '184 (+)42+8 (:25+7 94 (:25+7 9 8++28 94 2+ /77'9/43'1 94 7+8/*+39/'1 *+38/9> 7+8:19'39 7+9./30 >4:7 574548+* #1'3 :3*+789'3* ,:79.+7 9.'9 /3 #1'3 4, 574548+* '143- #'(14 4, 33+= 4:7 4:3)/1 +98 2'0+ 4:7 3+/-.(47.44*8 '7)./9+)9:7'11> 8+38/(1+ 33+= !4 ;/7:8 ,4:3* /3 9./8 2+88'-+ )42 &+78/43   &/7:8     %    ! ' ! !   ---PAGE BREAK--- OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY HALL 10940 San Pablo Avenue, El Cerrito, CA 94523-3034 Telephone (510) 215-4305 Fax (510) 215-4319 http://www.el-cerrito.org September 22, 2014 Special City Council Meeting Item No. 6(B) SAN PABLO AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN and ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CERTIFICATION Attachment 8 San Pablo Avenue Draft and Final Environmental Impact Reports and Mitigation Monitoring Program are posted on the City’s website at www.el-cerrito.org/SPASP and are also available for review in hardcopy format at the following locations: Office of the City Clerk 10940 San Pablo Avenue El Cerrito (510) 215-4305 and The El Cerrito Library El Cerrito 6510 Stockton Avenue ---PAGE BREAK--- 1 San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan & EIR September 22nd, 2014 Agenda Item No. 6(B) Attachment 9 ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 • Staff – Review background – Precedent Policies – Planning Process – Introduce Administrative Components – Review Form Based Code – Review Complete Streets – Infrastructure – EIR • City Council – Open Public Hearing – Consider Legislative Components Overview of Tonight’s Meeting ---PAGE BREAK--- 3 • 1999 General Plan – Major Issue: Development within the San Pablo Avenue Corridor unattractive and not pedestrian friendly – Primary Action Strategies: • Del Norte, Plaza and Midtown Revitalization Strategies Economic Development Strategy • San Pablo Avenue Corridor Design Guidelines • Green Infrastructure Initiative • 2006 Economic Development Action Plan – Goal: Create consistent vision of El Cerrito’s transition to an urban lifestyle (along SPA) that attracts high quality development and sustains a strong sense of community Local Goals ---PAGE BREAK--- 4 • 2013 Strategic Plan – Achieve long-term financial sustainability • Attract and maximize opportunities for new/expanding businesses – Deepen a sense of place and community identity • Reimagine underdeveloped and underutilized properties • Encourage use of alternative modes of transportation – Foster Environmental Sustainability • Implement the City’s Climate Action Plan - Reduce vehicle-miles traveled through transit-oriented urban form Local Goals ---PAGE BREAK--- 5 • 2013 Climate Action Plan – Encourage more compact, higher density infill development along transportation corridors – Increase economic base • More jobs • Greater vitality and more pedestrian-friendly economic activity • Invest in infrastructure that supports walking, biking and transit-use Local Goals …driving 19 miles less per week per household member! ---PAGE BREAK--- 6 Ohlone Greenwa Master Plan Climate Action Plan (CAP) San Pablo Specific Plan Urban Greenin Plan Active Transportation (Ped/Bike) Plan Update El Cerrito Strategic Plan City of Richmon • Richmond General Plan 2030 • Livable Corridors Form Based Code (Draft) • South Richmond Connectivity Plan Planning Context: Local General Plan Update ---PAGE BREAK--- 7 San Pablo Streetscape Baxter Creek Gateway Park City Hall / Cerrito Theater Reconstruction Planning Context: Related Capital Efforts San Pablo Ave, Moeser- Central-Liberty Ohlone Greenway Station Improvements Past & Upcoming Raingarden Capital Plannin Efforts ---PAGE BREAK--- 8 Planning Context: State and Regional SB Plan Bay AB 32 ABAG FOCUS Program California Complete Streets Act ---PAGE BREAK--- 9 Planning Process ---PAGE BREAK--- 10 • 2010 Draft/Established Principles – Balanced Transportation – Appropriate Mix of Land Uses – Context-Sensitive & Ecologically- Friendly Design – Appropriate Transitions Between Existing Neighborhoods & New Development – Intensification of Uses on Strategic Sites/Maximize Proximity to Transit San Pablo Ave Specific Plan “A vibrant, cohesive and community-strengthening corridor” ---PAGE BREAK--- 11 Planning Process 2007: SPASP Initiated • SPA Advisory Committee, Design Review Board, Planning Commission 2009: Draft Plan & Mitigated Negative Declaration 2010: 2nd Draft 2011: City Council Study Session • Open issues: Parking, Economic Feasibility, Need for More Location Appropriate TOD 2012: TOD Feasibility Analysis • Height, Density and Parking Recommendations 2013: Proposed SPASP Contract Authorized • Add Form Based Code, Programmatic EIR, Complete Streets and respond to feasibility analyses ---PAGE BREAK--- 12 Planning Process 2013-14 • Technical Advisory Committee: BART, AC Transit, Contra Costa Public Health, East Bay Bicycle Coalition, Caltrans • Internal Coordination: Police, Fire, Public Works, Planning, Economic Development, Sustainability • Study Sessions with Design Review Board, Planning Commission, City Council • Three Public Meetings Coordinated with Active Transportation Plan and Urban Greening • Developer and Architect Charrette • 45-Day Public Comment Period for EIR • Planning Commission Recommendation of Specific Plan and EIR to City Council ---PAGE BREAK--- 13 Chapter 1: Introduction Chapter 2: Form-Based Code • Administration • Regulation Chapter 3: Complete Streets Chapter 4: Infrastructure Appendices Specific Plan Outline ---PAGE BREAK--- 14 San Pablo Ave Urban Design Framework ---PAGE BREAK--- 15 San Pablo Ave Specific Plan Study Area ---PAGE BREAK--- 16 Urban Design Framework Overall Vision Map Moeser Node Stockton Node ---PAGE BREAK--- 17 A. Strengthen Sense of Place B. Ensure Return on Investment (ROI) C. Encourage Practical & Market Friendly Development D. Enhance & Humanize the Public Realm E. Catalyze Mode Shift Overarching Plan Strategies Uptown Midtown Downtown ---PAGE BREAK--- 18 Specific Plan Administration ---PAGE BREAK--- 19 • Intent: Set clear standards for high-quality development and incentivize investment • Tiered Approval System – Tier 1: Minor improvement existing structures, Administrative Review – Tier 2: Projects which precisely meet standards, Design Review Board at public hearing – Tier 3: Major improvements to existing structures, Design Review Board at Public Hearing – Tier 4: New development with specific deviations to Tier 2, Design Review Board and Planning Commission at Public Hearings Specific Plan Form‐Based Code Administration ---PAGE BREAK--- 20 FBC Administration – Land Use Regulations • Desired land uses residential, service, restaurant) allowed by right • Some land uses require Administrative or Conditional Use Permit (based on potential community impact) • Both residential and commercial allowed on ground floor throughout Plan Area • Commercial uses required on 50% of ground floor frontage in key commercial nodes ---PAGE BREAK--- 21 Regulating Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- 22 Regulating Plan Transect Zones: • Transit Oriented Higher- Intensity Mixed Use (TOHIMU) • Transit Oriented Mid-Intensity Mixed Use (TOMIMU) Street Types: • San Pablo Commercial • Major Commercial • Commercial • Gateway Streets • Neighborhood Streets • Ohlone Greenway • Potential Plaza Connections ---PAGE BREAK--- 23 Transect Zones: Desired Form: • Small to Large footprint • Up to 65' (85' if project is consistent as an affordable housing project) • Flush ground floor - ADA compliant • Shop fronts on Commercial Street types General Use: • Vertical & horizontal mixed-use Transit Oriented High-Intensity Mixed Use Transit Oriented Mid-Intensity Mixed Use Desired Form: • Buildings at or close to ROW • Medium to Large footprint/grain • Up to 55' (65' if affordable housing) General Use: • Vertical & horizontal mixed-use • Primarily residential with mixed use at Stockton and Moeser nodes ---PAGE BREAK--- 24 Mid Town Down Town Up Town • Support the unique existing conditions while building a stronger sense of place along the Avenue • Form responds to the adjoining street and neighborhood context • Uses are market friendly • Encouraged/desired uses on ground floor include retail, personal services, flex space and residential • Concentrated retail and commercial development provides higher walkability and convenience Overarching Goals Street Types Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- 25 Mid Town Down Town Up Town San Pablo Ave Commercial Street Street Types Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- 26 Mid Town Down Town Up Town Major Commercial Streets Street Types Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- 27 • Streets to walk, shop, etc • Flex space on ground floor with 50% of street frontage devoted to sidewalk activation uses like retail • Commercial uses prioritized at key blocks, corners and intersections Mid Town Down Town Up Town Commercial Streets Street Types Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- 28 Mid Town Down Town Up Town • Major to the City • Landscape and aesthetic improvements enhance the first impression & buffer traffic impacts • Complete streets that celebrate all users Gateway Streets Street Types Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- 29 Mid Town Down Town Up Town • Local residential and commercial streets • Calm traffic and recaptured right-of-way for placemaking Neighborhood Streets Street Types Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- 30 Mid Town Down Town Up Town Ohlone Greenway Street Types Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- 31 Mid Town Down Town Up Town Mid-Block Connections Potential Plaza Connections Street Types Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- 32 Mid Town Down Town Up Town Complete Streets Type Vision Map Street Types Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- 33 Form Based Code Standards ---PAGE BREAK--- 34 – Height (and to some extent, intensity) • Transit Oriented Higher Intensity : Up to 65’; 85’ with density bonus • Transit Oriented Med-Intensity: Up to 55’; 65’ with density bonus • Minimum 3 Stories Residential (Except on Constrained Lots) • Minimum 2 Stories Commercial (Exceptions granted with CUP) • Exceptions granted for commercial development with CUP Building Form ---PAGE BREAK--- 35 – Setback • Ensure space for clear contiguous pedestrian pathway, trees and amenities : – Up to 10’ for ground floor, especially with narrow sidewalks – Up to 15’ for ground floor residential • Respect access to sun and light to adjoining residential uses Building Form ---PAGE BREAK--- 36 – Variable Wall Plane – Transparency – Colors, Materials and Textures – Ecological & Environmental Elements Building Articulation ---PAGE BREAK--- 37 Shopfront Forecourt Arcade/ Gallery Flexible Front yard Frontage Standards ---PAGE BREAK--- 38 – Wide variety of parcels and adjoining conditions – Not many contiguous large parcels & generally 100’ deep – Need to respect the adjoining residential development Context Sensitive Design ---PAGE BREAK--- 39 Adjacent Lots Ohlone Greenway Local Streets (Mixed-Use, Commercial) Local Streets (Mixed-Use, Commercial) Major Commercial & Community Streets Shadow Guidelines ---PAGE BREAK--- 40 Mt Tamalpais Golden Gate Bridge San Francisco Skyline Albany Hill East Bay Hills 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 City of El Cerrito 5 5 Context Sensitive Design – Key Views from Public Spaces ---PAGE BREAK--- 41 – Key Locations for Views • Public ROW (east-west streets, sidewalks, etc) • BART platform • Public Plazas – Leverage the best design solution Views ---PAGE BREAK--- 42 • Provides adequate parking for motor vehicles and bicycles • Directs location and access for on-site parking • Allows for adjustable parking requirements to balance desired character, location of transit facilities and market friendly development patterns • Integrates opportunities for parking management strategies • Optimizes on-street parking opportunities Parking Overview ---PAGE BREAK--- 43 – Location Guidelines • Behind habitable space, underground, or on the interior or rear of buildings • Separated at least 5’ from buildings to ensure room for sidewalks, landscaping, and other plantings • No curbs cuts more than 24’ feet wide. • One curb cut per use per site. Conditional permit for more than one driveway per site. Parking ---PAGE BREAK--- 44 Parking: Commercial: • No off-street auto parking required for less than 3000 sq. ft.; • Up to 1 auto space/1,000 sq. ft. for spaces larger than 3000 sq. ft for TOHIMU and 1 space/500 sq. ft. for TOMIMU. • 1.5 short-term bicycle parking space per 3000 sq. ft. and 1 long-term for 10,000 sq. ft., minimum 2 spaces per establishment Residential: • Up to 1 auto space/unit for TOHIMU and up to 1.5/unit for TOMIMU • 1.5 short-term bicycle parking space per 10 units (minimum 2 spaces), 1 long-term space per unit Parking changes and reduction may require a parking study and additional Transportation Demand Management measures; Parking increases require Tier 4 approval process ---PAGE BREAK--- 45 – Type Guidelines • Tandem and stacked parking allowed for all uses • Shared, stacked and unbundled for mixed use and multi-family • ADA accessible parking distinct and conveniently located Parking ---PAGE BREAK--- 46 – Allowed Signs • Maximum area of signs per property limited to 1 sq. ft. per linear foot of building frontage • Wall mural signs may exceed maximum, with zoning administrator approval – Sign Types • Awning Sign • Blade Sign • Marquee Sign • Wall Sign • Wall Mural Sign • Floor Sign • Yard Sign • Sidewalk Sign • Monument Sign Signage ---PAGE BREAK--- 47 – Residential Uses • Private/Common Open Space: Minimum 80 sq. ft per unit • Public Open space: For buildings greater than 25,000 sq. ft., require 25 sq. ft. for each1,000 sq. ft. above 25,000 sq. ft.; For buildings less than 25,000 sq. ft., no open space requirement – Non-residential Uses • Public Open space: For buildings greater than 25,000 sq. ft., required 25 sq. ft. per 1,000 sq. ft. of building; For buildings less than 25,000 sq. ft., no open space requirement Open Space ---PAGE BREAK--- 48 Complete Streets Concepts ---PAGE BREAK--- 49 • Works with Form Based Code • Encourages mode shift – consistent with Climate Action Plan • Builds on recent investments • Designs a balanced and comfortable streetscape environment • Welcomes and accommodates users of all ages and abilities • Maintains travel lanes and on-street parking in majority of locations Complete Streets Overview ---PAGE BREAK--- 50 • Identifies transit, pedestrian, and bicycle infrastructure improvements throughout the corridor • Establishes multimodal performance measures to determine impacts of land use development and infrastructure projects on all modes • Addresses worst vehicle congestion around Del Norte • Incorporates specific transit related improvements: – Introduces MMLOS to reduce corridor-long travel time by 5% – Provides far-side bus platforms including accessible paths of travel and door zones, shelters, wayfinding, and bicycle parking – Identifies need for robust Transportation Demand Strategies (such as EcoPass Program) to encourage transit use Walking, Biking and Transit Use Improvements ---PAGE BREAK--- 51 • Ensures clear, unobstructed, contiguous path of travel – meaningfully integrates accessibility: – Wider minimums for sidewalks throughout- each sidewalk zone designed to incorporate accessibility requirements. – Clearances from street furniture/vertical obstructions Accessibility Improvements ---PAGE BREAK--- 52 • Incorporates wide variety of seating: – Caters to range of physical abilities including companion seating – Allows permanent accessible seating areas every ¼ mile along Major Commercial Streets & Neighborhood Commercial Streets • Provides dual directional curb ramps at 4 way intersections • Considers on-street ADA- accessible parking spaces Accessibility Improvements ---PAGE BREAK--- 53 Streetscape Design: Existing ---PAGE BREAK--- 54 Overarching: • Maintain travel lanes and on- street in majority of locations. • Widen sidewalk widths for contiguous clear pedestrian path • Add more cross-walks (at key intersections & mid-block) & pedestrian refuge area • Provide far-side bus platforms Uptown: • Convert Cutting to two-way traffic • Eliminate second left-turn lanes on San Pablo Ave • Provide bike lanes in one section and consideration of sharrows in another Mid-Town: • Add buffered bike lanes Downtown: • Consider bike sharrows Streetscape Design: Proposed ---PAGE BREAK--- 55 ---PAGE BREAK--- 56 Uptown Existing Prototypical Section ---PAGE BREAK--- 57 Uptown Proposed Prototypical Section ---PAGE BREAK--- 58 Midtown Existing Prototypical Section ---PAGE BREAK--- 59 Midtown Proposed Prototypical Section Cycle Track Cycle Track 11’ 11’ 11’ 11’ Placement of trees near traffic lights/intersections must not block their visibility ---PAGE BREAK--- 60 ---PAGE BREAK--- 61 ---PAGE BREAK--- 62 Downtown Existing Prototypical Section ---PAGE BREAK--- 63 Downtown Proposed Prototypical Section ---PAGE BREAK--- 64 Multi-Modal Level of Service (MMLOS) ---PAGE BREAK--- 65 Traditional Auto Level of Service • Highway Capacity Manual 2000 • Level of Service measured in delay to automobiles • Does not calculate level of service for bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit ---PAGE BREAK--- 66 Traditional Goal: Maintain Auto LOS Source: NACTO Urban Streets Design Guide Why Move to Multi-Modal LOS? ---PAGE BREAK--- 67 New Goal: Balance Service to All Modes Source: NACTO Urban Streets Design Guide Why Move to Multi-Modal LOS? ---PAGE BREAK--- 68 • Uses a combination of: • Built Environment Factors Assessment • Person-Delay Calculations • Evaluates each mode to weigh development project impacts, as well as benefits/drawbacks of proposed infrastructure improvements • Combines individual mode metrics into one overall LOS: • Corridor • Individual segments • Single intersections MMLOS Approach for San Pablo Ave ---PAGE BREAK--- 69 LOS Goals: • Bus: High • Pedestrian: High • Bicycle: Medium to High • Auto: LOS E – but LOS F considered if needed to ensure non-auto goals are achieved Proposed Approach for San Pablo Ave ---PAGE BREAK--- 70 * Assumes a new mid-block crosswalk Built Environment Factors Assessment LOS (High/Medium/Low) Transit LOS Pedestrian LOS Bicycle LOS Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Uptown: Cutting to Hill Cutting Intersection 7 10 0 7 SPA Segment Macdonald to Potrero 3 9 4 10 0 6 Mid-block at Del Norte BART 0 8 Mid-Town: Moeser to Waldo Moeser Intersection 7 10 0 10 SPA Segment Potrero to Lincoln 7 9 7 8* 0 8 Plumas Intersection 0 10 Downtown: Central to Fairmount San Diego Intersection 0 10 SPA Segment Lincoln to Albany City Limit 4 9 5 10* 0 2 Fairmount Intersection 9 9 0 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- 71 * Assumes a new mid-block crosswalk Built Environment Factors Assessment LOS (High/Medium/Low) Transit LOS Pedestrian LOS Bicycle LOS Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Uptown: Cutting to Hill Cutting Intersection 7 10 0 7 SPA Segment Macdonald to Potrero 3 9 4 10 0 6 Mid-block at Del Norte BART 0 8 Mid-Town: Moeser to Waldo Moeser Intersection 7 10 0 10 SPA Segment Potrero to Lincoln 7 9 7 8* 0 8 Plumas Intersection 0 10 Downtown: Central to Fairmount San Diego Intersection 0 10 SPA Segment Lincoln to Albany City Limit 4 9 5 10* 0 2 Fairmount Intersection 9 9 0 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- 72 Multimodal LOS Summary • Improve transit conditions to a High level-of-service, with the largest change in Uptown and Downtown • Improve the pedestrian environment to a High level-of- service throughout the corridor • Improve the bicycle environment, especially in Midtown • Maintain acceptable auto level- of-service ---PAGE BREAK--- 73 Infrastructure ---PAGE BREAK--- 74 • Identifies the utility providers for the corridor • Provides a general review of potential limitations in the currently installed systems • Recommends feasibility-level improvements and associated costs, for: – Storm Drainage System – Water System – Sanitary Sewer System – Dry Utilities Infrastructure Analysis ---PAGE BREAK--- 75 CEQA & Environmental Impact Report ---PAGE BREAK--- 76 • CEQA Guidelines • Inform decision makers and the public • Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) • Impacts and Mitigation California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) ---PAGE BREAK--- 77 • Aesthetics and Visual Resources • Air Quality • Biological Resources • Cultural and Historic Resources • Geology and Soils • GHGs and Global Climate Change • Hazards & Hazardous Materials • Hydrology and Water Quality Draft Program EIR evaluates: • Land Use and Planning • Noise • Population and Housing • Public Services • Transportation and Circulation • Utilities and Service Systems • Project Consistency with Local and Regional Plans • Alternatives to the Proposed Project ---PAGE BREAK--- 78 • Significant impacts • Mitigations to reduce most impacts to less-than-significant levels • Significant unavoidable impacts Draft Program EIR identifies: ---PAGE BREAK--- 79 • Scenic vistas • Historic resources • Construction noise • Construction vibration • Cumulative traffic at San Pablo Avenue/Cutting Boulevard intersection Statement of Overriding Considerations required for potential significant unavoidable impacts on: ---PAGE BREAK--- 80 • Draft EIR (June 2014) • Responses to comments and revised EIR pages (August 2014) • Appendices (air quality, traffic) Final EIR includes: ---PAGE BREAK--- 81 • Is identified by CEQA for evaluating a long-term plan • Identifies mitigations that will be applied to future individual projects • Is intended to streamline future CEQA review • Allows for future site-specific analysis Program EIR : ---PAGE BREAK--- 82 • Business retention/ expansion/attraction • Reaching out to high-quality developers • Ongoing development of parking and transportation/demand management programs • Monitor plan success towards goals • Living document Next Steps After Adoption : ---PAGE BREAK--- 83 San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan & EIR September 22nd, 2014