The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 01222008 - D.2 --�. F..._C TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra of ROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP ::- ;4 Costa COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR County DATE: JANUARY 22, 2008 SUBJECT: Hearing on an Appeal filed by Rodney Paul and Marilyn Stollon of the County Planning Commission Decision to Grant an Amendment to the Colusa Circle Final Development Plan for a modified retail-business/office project, located at#370 - #380 Colusa Avenue in the Kensington area. (Triangle Building Project) (Ed Hammonds — Applicant & Owner; County File #DP03-3047) (District 1) SPECIFIC REQUEST (S) OR RECOMMENDATION (S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION I. RECOMMENDATION — After accepting any testimony and closing the hearing. A. DETERMINE that the 1983 CEQA review and Mitigated Negative Declaration determination that was adopted for the original Colusa Circle Final Development Plan satisfies the review requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the current project (ref. CEQA Guidelines § 15162); B. DENY the appeal of Rodney Paul and Marilyn Stollon. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X Yes NO SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER ` SIGNATURES ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED 03,'R VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND _UNANIMOUS (ABSENTCORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND AYES: NOES: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN ATTESTED JOHN C N, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF Contact: Mike Henn (925) 335-1205 SUPER S AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR cc: Community Development Dept. (orig.) Ed Hammonds BY PUTY Rodney Paul and Marilyn Stollon Public Works Department Kensington MAC City of EI Cerrito JANUARY 22, 2008 Board of Supervisors • File#DP033047 Page 2 C. SUSTAIN the County Planning Commission approval, subject to additional conditions that have been formulated and recommended by staff following the decision of the County Planning Commission, and are identified in marked text. D. ADOPT the Findings contained in County Planning Commission Resolution No. 24- 2007 and as supplemented in Exhibit A, as the basis for the Board's actions. E. DIRECT staff to post a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk. II. FISCAL IMPACT None. The developer is responsible for the cost of processing the proposed modifications to the development plan including this appeal. III. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS The owner of several commercial properties comprising a triangular block is seeking modifications to a previously approved final development plan for the site. • A. Environs The site is part of an older, small-scale, neighborhood commercial center surrounded by single family residential development. The site is located near the southwestern corner of the Kensington community and directly abuts EI Cerrito to the west. Also nearby, to the southwest and south, are the city limits of Albany and Berkeley, each about one block away. The subject triangular-shaped site is surrounded by public streets. Colusa Avenue is the principal frontage of the development which is located along the east side of the subject property. To the west is Santa Fe Avenue, and to the south is Oak View Avenue. Several properties in this older neighborhood commercial center are vacant or underutilized. Small shops, a bar, a veterinarian office, a nursery school and a four- story apartment building are nearby in the R-B zones or in the P-1 zone. A large but long-closed restaurant (the former Narsai's) is across Colusa Avenue from the subject property. Single family residences in the R-6 zone extend outward in other directions from the small commercial area. The closest single family residential development is immediately across Santa Fe Avenue to the west. Those residences are within the city limits of EI Cerrito. B. Site Description The triangular block consists of three lots totaling 0.32 acres. The site contains four buildings containing retail businesses (bakery, cleaners, shoe shop, salon and offices, and a closed gas station/auto repair garage. JANUARY 22, 2008 Board of Supervisors File#DP033047 Page 3 C. General Plan Designation The designation for the subject property as well as several other nearby properties in the area is Commercial (CO) under the Land Use Element Map (Contra Costa County General Plan, 2005-2020). The existing as well as proposed retail and office use would be consistent with that designation. The Commercial (CO) designation extends more broadly to the north, south, and east than the lots that are currently zoned and developed with commercial uses. In 1991, after the subject property was approved, the update to the General Plan provided for specific design parameters for development under the Commercial (CO) designation including: Maximum site coverage: 40% Maximum building height: 35 ft. Maximum floor area ratio: 1.0 D. Zoning • The subject property is zoned Planned Unit (P-1) District, which was applied to the site, and two other properties that front on Colusa Circle in 1983 with the adoption of a Final Development Plan permit: County Files #2539-RZ and #DP 3056-82. Final Development Plan #3056-82 The 1983 Final Development Plan and accompanying Mitigated Negative Declaration were approved by the County Planning Commission and subsequently by the Board of Supervisors on appeal, on June 28, 1983. At the time that that proposal was made, the site consisted of several separate parcels. Ed Hammonds was the applicant for the 1983 project as well as for the current application now before the County. The 1983 FDP approved three adjacent areas for individual phased development. A 1983 parking study by Wilbur Smith and Associates found the proposed parking to be adequate. Following the project approval, several of the parcels were sold to other parties. A component of the 1983 plan (Phase 1) at 400-404 Colusa Avenue was constructed in 1985 and occupied, thus, exercising the project approval. The Phase I site is located at the southerly side of the intersection of Colusa Avenue and Oak View Avenue. That site now contains an animal hospital and a hair salon. Phase II was for a three-story, 34-stall parking garage, 120-seat restaurant and retail at 401-411 Colusa Avenue at the northerly side of the intersection of Colusa Avenue and Oak View Avenue on the far side of Colusa Circle from the current JANUARY 22, 2008 Board of Supervisors File#DP033047 Page 4 project. The Phase II site has not been developed under the 1983 approval. The triangular site to the north of Oak View Avenue, which was approved for a 19,100 square foot, including a two and three-story commercial building, is the site of the subject application now before the County. The new parking associated with that approval was limited to 14 new spaces created by the conversion of parallel spaces to diagonal spaces on Oak View Avenue and Santa Fe Avenue. E. Description of Current Project The current proposal would only affect Phases III and IV of the 1983 Final Development Plan. The applicant is proposing to substitute a smaller project for the larger project approved in 1983, a 8360 square foot (gross) three-story building (Building "A")with retail uses on the first floor and two floors of offices above where a closed service station is now located. A 13-space, off-street parking lot is proposed on the southerly portion of the site, to be accessed from Oak View Avenue, where the existing two-story building (1537 Oak View Avenue) is proposed to be removed. A small, vacant triangular area on Colusa Avenue located between the two existing buildings, containing about 600 square feet is proposed to be developed with a two- story, plus partial mezzanine level, addition (Building "B") containing 1629 square feet (gross). In summary, approximately 2944 square feet (gross)of buildings are proposed to be demolished, and 9989+/- square feet (gross) of new buildings are to be built, resulting in a net increase of 7045+/- square feet of building area, along with a 13-car parking lot. The parking along the Santa Fe and Oak View Avenue street frontages would be changed from parallel to diagonal to increase the number of spaces by 13. As proposed, there would be 26 additional parking spaces to serve the 7045 square feet of new buildings, or one space per 270+/- square feet of new building area. Parking Summary: There is currently no off-street parking being provided on the site to serve the existing buildings containing 10,150 square feet (gross). Presumably, if neither the current project nor the original 1983 approved project go forth, the existing buildings on site could be rehabilitated and used to a greater degree than they now are, continuing the total lack of off-street parking. As proposed, there will be two buildings retained on the site both located on Colusa Avenue containing a total of 7391 square feet (gross). If the subject project is approved, there would be a total of 17,380 square feet (gross) of existing and new buildings with 26 new parking spaces, in addition to the remaining on-street parallel parking spaces. Building "A": The currently proposed project would allow the construction of Building "A" which would have 3018 square feet (gross) of retail space on the first floor and 5342 square feet (gross) of office above on the second and third floors. An elevator is and stairway would serve the upper floors. The entry doors for the ground floor retail would be on Colusa Avenue. A door providing access to a rear deck as well as the parking lot would be on the rear or west side of the building. The upper floors would JANUARY 22, 2008 Board of Supervisors File#DP033047 Page 5 have an elevator lobby and bathrooms on each level. Building "B": The proposed Building "B" is a small building proposed to fill in the triangular space between the two existing buildings on Colusa Avenue. The proposed exterior facade is similar to the two adjacent buildings. The building would contain 513 square feet on the first floor, 409 square feet on the mezzanine level and 707 square feet on the second floor. The building is also triangular shaped being about 30 feet wide at the street but narrowing to only about 4 feet in width at the rear. Site Amenities: Two usable outdoor amenity areas are proposed at the rear, one a raised deck of about 270 square feet would be located behind Building "A". The other usable outdoor space would be a patio area with benches and landscaping containing about 560 square feet located near the Oak View Avenue frontage, between the parking lot and the corner building to be retained at 384-388 Colusa Avenue. These two outdoor spaces could provide customer and employee amenities for the retail spaces along Colusa Avenue. (see Section VII, below, for discussion of enhanced site amenities in latest revision). Comparison of 1983 Approval with the Current Proposal (Triangle Building Project) 1983 Approval for The Current Proposal for Existing Condition Subject Property The Subject Property Square Footage 19,143 13,900 8,120 net leasable Number of Stories 2 & 3 2 & 3 2 Maximum Height 38 35 & 40 27 ft. Off-street Parking 0 13 0 Provided Additional On- 14 13 0 street Spaces Provided Total New Spaces 14 26 0 Building Square 1367 535 na Footage per New Space Maximum Site 79% 53% 46% Coverage Floor Area Ratio 1.63 1.24 .73 JANUARY 22, 2008 Board of Supervisors File #DP033047 Page 6 F. Other Pending Projects in the Area The County is processing two other projects in the vicinity. 1 . Circle Investors (Chisolm) Project - The Community Development Department has received applications from Circle Investors for a development permit to construct three residential units above a small commercial building of 1950 square feet located across Colusa Circle from the subject property at 401 Colusa Avenue. This site consists of a portion of the site known as Phase II in the 1983 FDP approval where a 120 seat restaurant and a 34 space parking garage was approved. As proposed, a General Plan amendment is required to re-designate the site Mixed Use, as well as modification to a Final Development Plan and a minor subdivision. Those applications have recently been deemed complete as of the time of report preparation and is currently undergoing environmental review before it is scheduled for public hearing. 2. Stong & Associates/Narsai David Project - A Development Plan and Land Use Permit application have been received (County Files: DP073041 and LP072067) for the re-use of the long-closed restaurant building at 385 Colusa Avenue • across the street to the east, to develop conforming R-B uses other than restaurant uses. Generally, this proposal is to rehabilitate and remodel the building and divide the interior into leasable spaces and add one apartment unit. This site was not a part of the 1983 FDP approval. The application was recently deemed complete and should have been heard by KMAC before the date of the Board's appeal hearing. G. Comments of Other Agencies, Jurisdictions or Advisory Agencies: The Kensington Municipal Advisory Council (KMAC) has reviewed the proposal on several occasions and on May 29, 2007, KMAC recommended approval subject to conditions of approval which have been agreed to by the applicant and incorporated into the project and/or conditions. At the August 14, 2007, County Planning Commission hearing, the response from the Kensington Police Department was not available. A communication has now been received and is attached from the Police Chief which states that the proposed project has no significant impact on police services. The nearby cities of Berkeley, EI Cerrito and Albany have been contacted. EI Cerrito and Albany have responded that they have no objections. Berkeley has not responded to two requests for comments. JANUARY 22, 2008 • Board of Supervisors File#DP033047 Page 7 IV. Compliance with the Review Requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act For purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), in 1983, the County adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Rezoning and Final Development Plan that was processed at that time for that project. Phase I of that approval for property at 400-404 Colusa Avenue, to the south has been built, and the County considers that the earlier permit has been exercised, and therefore, project approval, as well as its accompanying CEQA review did not expire. Phase II on the opposite side of Colusa Circle remains vacant. The current project area was designated as Phases III and IV in the 1983 approval. For purposes of satisfying the current project's compliance with CEQA, in light of the whole record, staff has determined that the proposed changes are not substantial and would not require a major revision to the 1983 Mitigated Negative Declaration pertinent to the involvement of either new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. The current project consists of exercising the previous development approval for the area, but for a reduced-scale project (reduced floor area and reduced footprint)and with more parking. The County Planning Commission has concurred with staff that the environmental impacts from the reduced-scale build-out are less than that of the earlier approval that allows for larger buildings with less parking. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this project; i.e. the Mitigated Negative Declaration, adopted in 1983 for the original Final Development Plan, remains applicable for the subject property(CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21807). Nevertheless, a new parking and traffic study has been provided which confirms the conclusions of the earlier approval and previous environmental review regarding the less than significant parking and traffic impacts of the project. V. HEARING OF THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION The County Planning Commission conducted a hearing on this matter on August 14, 2007. At that time, staff concluded that the project was architecturally well-designed; the proposed uses were appropriate to serve the community; and that the modifications to the development plan are consistent with the General Plan. Additionally, staff noted that the current project is smaller and provides more parking than the still valid, 1983 approval, and is a significant improvement over the existing situation in that the reduction in building size would bring the building closer to complying with the General Plan design standards adopted in 1991. Based on these evaluations, staff . recommended approval of the project with conditions. The Commission heard testimony from the applicant and several neighbors. There were 19 speakers against the project citing concerns with the buildings' size, height, lack of JANUARY 22, 2008 Board of Supervisors File #DP033047 Page 8 off-street parking, and traffic problems. There were three speakers including the applicant in support. After completing the testimony, a majority of the Commission determined that the revised project has reduced impacts compared to the previously approved project in that it reduces the mass and visual impact of the building and provides a greater amount of parking. On a split vote (3 — 2 with two Commissioners absent), the Commission voted to adopt the staff recommendation. The two Commissioners who opposed the project(Battaglia and Wong)voiced concerns about traffic safety and noted that they had not been provided with a response from the Kensington Police Department. (Subsequently, staff received a response from the Kensington Police Department indicating that it has no concerns with this project). VI. RECEIPT OF APPEAL ON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION AND APPEAL POINTS 'The appellants' appeal letter contains 19 points. Generally, the appeal points can be summarized as follows: 1. The proposed buildings are too tall (3-story), and thus are incompatible in this largely single-family residential area. 2. The off-street parking proposed is inadequate and adverse parking and traffic consequences will result. 3. There are inconsistencies between the proposed project and Kensington Ordinance provisions as well as with General Plan policies. 4. Several significant trees will be lost. As indicated in the following point-by-point evaluation of the appeal points, staff has found the concerns raised by the appellants to have been adequately addressed in project modifications or by the conditions of approval. The applicant has met with the Kensington Municipal Advisory Council six times and after several project modifications, KMAC supports the project. Appeal Points From August 26, 2007 Appeal Letter: Introductory Points: A. Appeal Point: Per the Administrative Procedures Act, the evidence does not support . the findings of the board, the findings did not support the decision and therefore the Commission acted in excess and/or without jurisdiction. A petition signed by neighborhood residents indicates that over 450 residents would be impacted if this decision is allowed to stand. JANUARY 22, 2008 Board of Supervisors File #DP033047 Page 9 Response: The findings list some 12 applicable findings which the County Planning Commission affirmatively made in acting on the subject project. A substantial number of letters and petitions, both in favor and against, were submitted. While the Commission is aware of, and sensitive to public participation, the project is evaluated on its merits relative to the applicable findings and regulations. B. Appeal Point. This is the first of three developments, and an overdevelopment at this point will necessarily impinge on the opportunities remaining for developers Carol Chisholm and Narsai David. The Planned Unit Development (PUD) of 1983 addresses all three properties, and doing it piecemeal, as the Hammonds'proposal forced the Commission to do, will result in inconsistent results for the Colusa Circle and its property owners. Response: The other"developments"that staff is aware of consist of(1)down-sizing of the Phase II portion of the original 1983 approval, and (2) the re-use of a building formerly used as a restaurant for other uses such as retail or offices, which should reduce the traffic generation and off-street parking requirements from what would be otherwise allowed. The Planned Unit Development of 1983 did not include the David property. Neither Ms. Chisholm nor Mr. David have submitted anything in opposition, so if the subject project was going to adversely affect those property owners, they are capable of voicing their own objections. With regards to the concern with "piecemealing,"each application is processed in accordance with the provisions of the applicable Zoning Ordinance requirement. We are unaware of any provision of State Law or County Ordinance that would require the hearing on the subject project to be delayed so that it might be heard concurrently with other applications. In fact, doing so would be contrary to the Permit Streamlining Act (Gov. Code § 65950). C. Appeal Point: The Commission failed to address the problem that the project does not conform to the General Plan. Mr. Hammonds is seeking to modify his permit, thus he is no longer grandfathered in under the 1983 permit and must abide by the General Plan. Mr. Hammonds owned all the lots and had the area rezoned P-1, and then sold off the lot/residence that was supposed to be the parking garage for the planned development. This parcel was sold to Ms. Chisholm, whose proposal will soon be pending before the Planning Commission. Response: The project approved in 1983 was found to be in compliance with the applicable General Plan, and that approval remains valid. The modifications currently proposed exceed the present lot coverage, floor area ratio and, height limitations of the existing General Plan. However, as described in greater detail elsewhere in this report and in the staff report to the County Planning Commission, the 1983 approval was subsequently exercised and remains valid. In 1991, the Board updated the General Plan establishing new design standards for commercial projects. However, that action did not invalidate previously granted entitlements, even if they have been JANUARY 22, 2008 Board of Supervisors • File#DP033047 Page 10 only partially exercised. The current proposal would bring the project closer to the present General Plan standard. Additionally, revisions made after the Planning Commission action further lower the building height by 2.5 feet bringing the height closer to the current General Plan design standard for the Commercial (CO) designation. D. Appeal Point. While the original proposal may have been a satisfactory response to the parking needs of 24 years ago, Mr. Hammonds has sold the lot which was supposed to satisfy the 1983 plan and now proposes to violate the General Plan with a slightly reduced square footage and a parking plan that will not accommodate the burden imposed on the Circle in 2007. Response: The appellants believe that the Phase II site, located across Colusa Circle to the east, was intended to accommodate the off-street parking requirements of the subject project area (Phases III & IV). Rather, as part of the 1983 approval, a 12,900 square foot (gross) building was approved for Phase II, across Colusa Circle at 401 Colusa Avenue, located about 150 feet to the east, with 34 parking spaces in a two- story garage. That building included retail and office uses and a 120-seat restaurant. While joint or shared parking between the phases of the 1983 project would have • been allowed and encouraged, the number of parking spaces provided for that other unbuilt building would not have generated a surplus of spaces to be supplied to the subject property. 50 spaces would have been required but only 34 spaces were provided. Consequently, the absence of Phase II should not worsen the parking situation for the current project. Moreover, the public policy aspects of providing off- street parking have changed since 1983, but in a different direction from what the appellants suggest. Many jurisdictions as part of the collective movements associated with "Smart Growth," energy independence, and fighting global warming are discouraging off-street parking by reducing requirements to levels lower than previously imposed (See Other Jurisdiction Parking Comparison Table on Page S-15 in Planning Commission staff report). E. Appeal Point: The General Plan was adopted in 1991, and it states that the height of the building shall not exceed 35 feet (Mr. Hammonds proposed 37.5 feet on Colusa and 42 feet on Santa Fe); nor should the maximum site coverage exceed 40% (Mr. Hammonds has proposed 53%); density should not exceed 1.0 (Mr. Hammonds has proposed 1.24). Response: Discussed in "C" above. Numbered Points: 1. Appeal Point: The Commission did not fully consider the Kensington Ordinance, section 84-74.1206, section a, standards of consideration. To ensure the development will promote the values articulated in Section 84-74.204 and promote JANUARY 22, 2008 Board of Supervisors File#DP033047 Page 11 the general welfare, public health and safety of the community, the zoning administrator shall evaluate siting, size, bulk, building envelope, height, setbacks, relative scale, off-street parking spaces, window placement, artificial lighting, and location of mechanical devices, such as motors, fans and vents. These features of the development shall be evaluated on the basis of their impacts on the neighboring properties, with regard to view protection, obstructions, privacy in living areas, parking, light and solar access, maintaining residential noise levels, and compatibility with the neighborhood with regard to bulk and scale. Response: The staff report prepared for the review of the County Planning Commission discussed the points listed above in considerable detail. The siting, building size, height, bulk and relative scale, in context with the neighboring properties, as well as building envelope, setbacks, window placement, lighting, and location of mechanical equipment, and the adequacy of off-street parking spaces are discussed directly in the staff report or are addressed in the conditions of approval. Full project descriptions and reports as well as letters and petitions from area residents regarding their concerns were presented to the County Planning Commission in advance of the public hearing. The Kensington Municipal Advisory Council also considered the subject project in light of the relevant Kensington Ordinance provisions and supports the project. 2. Appeal Point: The County Planning Commission failed to consider reducing the project in height to 2 stories to reduce the impact of parking and traffic demands on the Circle. The project needs to be reduced in height from 3 stories to 2 stories because the Hammonds proposal does not conform to the building requirements of the General Plan, and would be taller than most of the existing 1- and 2-story buildings in the area and inconsistent with the general character of the neighborhood. Response: The County Planning Commission reviewed the materials and received testimony in regard to reducing the building from 3 to 2 stories, and determined that such a reduction was not necessary. The referenced General Plan policies do not preclude 3 stories but relate to height. Three stories can be accomplished in 35 feet, but because of grade differences, and the desire by many including KMAC for a more interesting building design with a pitched roof, the building exceeds 35 feet. There is no inherent relationship between building height and perceived off-street parking inadequacies. For example, a wider,two-story building could have produced the same parking demand but would have allowed less space to accommodate the parking. A taller but narrower building could produce more space for parking. 3. Appeal Point. The Commission failed to consider that the 3-story project will block views of the hillside for those who live on Santa Fe since the building will be 42 feet on that side. For those in the apartment building on Colusa, it will block their view of the Bay, as well as solar access. It will also block the sunlight into the antique store on Colusa. The houses on Santa Fe will be facing a 42-foot wall, and even though it JANUARY 22, 2008 Board of Supervisors File#DP033047 Page 12 steps in, it will still be bulky. This is not in keeping with the Kensington Ordinance 84- 74.1206 standards and the General Plan, which protects views, and solar access, as well as stressing design compatibility, including building bulk, size and height(Policy 3-191, 192, 193, 194). Response: The proposed Building "A" is relatively narrow compared to the much wider 2 and 3-story building approved in 1983 (90 feet wide vs. 130 feet). The already approved building would more significantly block views in both the uphill and downhill directions because of its greater width but similar height. In the context of the front yards of the residents on Santa Fe Avenue who are already seeing the existing backs of a closed service station, 2-story buildings, and a 4-story building on Colusa Avenue, the view blockage in the uphill direction would be minimal. The removal of several very tall trees will open up views in the uphill direction. View blockage, while an important consideration, is not necessarily the controlling element in the panoply of planning and zoning considerations. The surrounding commercial lots are zoned R-B which could also allow 3-story buildings of similar heights. The applicant's architect has provided a shadow analysis based on an accepted architectural computer program, that shows that the buildings' shadows would not reach the houses on the west side of Santa Fe Avenue because the shadow would predominantly fall to the north, largely on Colusa Avenue rather than west and southwest toward Santa Fe Avenue. The shadow would reach the commercial building frontages on the east side of Colusa Avenue, but only late in the afternoon during the time of lowest sun angle (December 21S) 4. Appeal Point. We oppose 3-story structures in an area with predominantly I-and 2- story structures. Response: There are a variety of building heights and numbers of stories in the vicinity. There is a 4-story building, taller than the proposed building under discussion, directly across Colusa Avenue and a 3-story apartment building on Colusa Circle. Some of the houses in the general area in the hills to the east are 3-stories on their downhill sides. 5. Appeal Point. The Commission failed to consider that the project will cause the elimination of several heritage trees (Scent (sic) Cedar, Coast Oak that are over 6 feet in circumference and are protected by the Heritage Tree Ordinance). This issue needs to be reviewed more closely to see if they can be saved and still maintain parking. Response: The Incense Cedars in the middle of the subject property are large enough to be considered as "code protected" trees under the Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance, adopted after the 1983 approval. A tree becomes a designated "Heritage Tree" under the Heritage Tree Preservation Ordinance only if it JANUARY 22, 2008 Board of Supervisors . File#DP033047 Page 13 is nominated and designated a Heritage Tree by the Board of Supervisors. No trees on this site have been nominated or designated Heritage Trees. However, all trees were approved for removal in the 1983 approval. A proposed modification to a Final Development Plan would not rescind the prior approval to remove them. Because of the trees' location, their retention would be difficult if off-street parking is provided. If the applicant and the area residents were willing to forego the off-street parking lot, there might be an opportunity to retain some trees. 21 new trees are proposed to be planted in the new project, primarily around the perimeter as street trees plus a few adjacent to the parking lot. 6. Appeal Point: The Commission failed to address whether the design of many of the homes in the area can actually accommodate typically wider late-model cars in their garages. The project will use parking spaces on the neighboring streets which have limited parking, e.g. on many of the side streets there is parking available only on one side. In addition, many of these homes have tandem, steep or narrow garages that can't always house a standard-size car, and some of which cannot accommodate a late-model car at all. Response: Some degree of existing off-street parking nonconformity can be • expected in an older neighborhood such as this. The subject applicant would not be obligated to provide parking for those who are deficient. It is staff's general experience that many garages in older neighborhoods would accommodate the majority of standard-sized sedans today, if the garages were free of storage and available for the parking of vehicles. Many people park in their driveways or on the street because of personal preference or convenience. 7. Appeal Point. The Commission failed to address whether making Oakview one-way and adding diagonal parking will exacerbate traffic issues and create visual and safety issues because drivers won't be able to see around the corner on Santa Fe Avenue. Also, in the Planning Report, the County indicated that if diagonal parking does not work, they will rescind it and return to parallel parking with a resulting loss of parking spaces. This will negatively impact availability of parking in the neighborhood. Response: The review of the diagonal parking and one-way direction for Oakview Avenue was accomplished by a professional traffic study and by the Public Works Department's review which found the modifications acceptable, as they had previously done in 1983. The 1983 approval included the same modifications of Oak View Avenue. The sight distance at the Santa Fe/Colusa intersection must be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. The discussion of the unlikely later removal of the diagonal parking on Santa Fe Avenue was discussed in the staff report to the Planning Commission. 8. Appeal Point: The parking survey provided by Mr. Hammonds does not include traffic and parking from 4 to 7 pm, when tenants are leaving, and shoppers are coming to JANUARY 22, 2008 Board of Supervisors File #DP033047 Page 14 the Circle forservices, picking up children at day care and going to the restaurants. It does not address the fact that 2 other developments are planned which will have additional parking demands. It also does not account for the fact that the new tenants will not necessarily leave the area at 5 pm and may stay to eat or drink, thus not relinquishing parking spots that would be used by the residents and evening patrons. In the parking survey, available parking spots were counted on both sides of Santa Fe (which was disallowed in the county's report), giving the impression there are more available spaces than there actually are. Response: The Wilbur Smith Associates (WSA) parking analysis uses the period of up to 4:00 PM because the principal use is professional offices which generate its highest parking requirements during the weekday, midday period which is appropriate for the proposed office uses. The appellants may be considering the period of highest traffic counts such as 4-7 PM as also being the time of highest parking load. Rather, the parking demand peak hours occur at different times than the traffic peak hours. The WSA parking study used a larger vicinity for its parking analysis than what the Public Works Department was referring to in its comments about not crediting the subject project with the parking across Santa Fe Avenue. The WSA study was evaluating the current availability of on-street parking for the overall area, but not . crediting the project with these available spaces. 9. Appeal Point. There is an empty lot, proposed for development by Ms. Chisholm, which presently handles at least 10 parking spaces that will not be available when development is completed there. There will be an overall increase in parking demands. This project may have demands for on-street parking as well, in addition to what they will provide. Mr. David also has a parking lot that has 10-15 spaces that will not be available when his project is developed. Response: It would appear that the appellants are implying that the owners of the vacant lot and the David property may be subject to some sort of on-going obligation to provide parking for parkers other than their own clients or tenants. If so, these property owners would be precluded from using their own properties in the future. Given the high level of existing, available on-street parking surrounding the Triangle Block, there does not appear to be a reason for tenants of the subject project to use the parking spaces alluded to by the appellants. Furthermore, staff has not found any requirement of the County that the Phase II (Chisholm) property provide parking for the subject site. 10. Appeal Point: The neighborhood has changed since 1983 and there are more cars per family and more traffic, and there is a limit to how much traffic and parking a commercial center in a residential area can handle. • Response: While it is somewhat true that overall auto ownership rates have crept upward over the years, the two parking studies done some 24 years apart show fairly JANUARY 22, 2008 • Board of Supervisors File#DP033047 Page 15 similar parking availability in this particular area. 11. Appeal Point: The Commission failed to address the issue of whether traffic will be increased on Santa Fe with a potential backup of traffic onto Santa Fe, as cars try to turn on to Colusa. Response: The County Planning Commission did discuss the issue of possibly increased traffic at the intersection of Santa Fe Avenue and Colusa Avenue, and asked the Public Works Department representative to consider whether additional traffic controls or signs were appropriate. Given the moderately high levels of existing traffic compared to the minimal increase in traffic generated by what is essentially a net increase of only 7045 square feet of new commercial buildings, the subject project's proportion of traffic relative to what exists is small. Staff notes that the WSA report actually overstates the increase in traffic generation (p.9) because the authors did not subtract the buildings to be razed, which can be re-occupied. If that adjustment were made, the resulting daily trip generation would change from 287 to 229 and peak hour from 37 to 30 trips (e.g. one additional car every two minutes on average during the peak hour). • 12. Appeal Point. The Commission failed to address whether there will be increased traffic on surrounding one-lane streets such as Valley, as drivers avoid the Colusa Circle. Response: Given the small increase in traffic that the subject property would produce, and the low probability that such an increase would produce congestion to a level to cause drivers to avoid Colusa Circle, staff is not aware of a reason that more distant, non-proximate streets would be affected. 13. Appeal Point: We do not want to change the primarily residential character of the area. Currently, the shops serve the local population, including a grocery, dry cleaner, shoe repair shop, bakery and veterinary clinic. The ambience of this neighborhood is unique and should not be lost. Response: The decision by the County to allow more commercial development for this site was made under 1983 Planned Unit Development. That decision remains in effect unless amended. If approved, the current proposal would reduce the size of development and provide more parking. The project sponsor indicates that the additional square footage of retail would be used for neighborhood-serving small businesses such as those listed as desirable by the appellants. The upstairs offices would be used by those offering professional services, such as family counselors and psychiatrists. • 14. Appeal Point: To avoid problems that resulted from the PUD in 1983, there needs to be a shorter time limit for starting this project. Two and a half years is too long, per the JANUARY 22, 2008 • Board of Supervisors File#DP033047 Page 16 information on page 1 in the planning report. The situation may change in the Circle, making the project problematic if other developers proceed before Mr. Hammonds. Response: The appellants are referring to a required P-1 Ordinance finding for approval of a Final Development Plan. The ordinance does not necessarily require an applicant to establish the project within 2 '/2 years of the project approval. The time limits for exercising (beginning) a P-1 project are described in Ordinance Code Section 84-66.1602. This project was timely exercised shortly after the 1983 approval. Staff sees no compelling reason to restrict the time frame for allowing this project to be built. VII. REVISION TO PROJECT FOLLOWING PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING After the August 14, 2007, County Planning Commission approval and the receipt of the appeal, staff from the Supervisor District I Office, Community Development Department, and Public Works Department have met with the applicant on several occasions to attempt to resolve some of the perceived problems or impacts voiced by the appellants and others opposed to the project. In particular, the site and immediately abutting right- of-way were re-studied to find more locations for landscaping and • customer/neighborhood amenities as well as more parking. The applicant's architect then met with representatives of the Public Works Department to study locations where additional customer amenities such as landscaped seating areas could be provided. The revised plans now provide for two bulbs or rounded extensions of the sidewalk that extend into the right-of-way in a circular pattern, one at the intersection of Colusa Avenue and Oakview Avenue and the other at the intersection of Colusa Avenue and Santa Fe Avenue. The latter bulb to the north allows for one additional on-street parking space because the length of the Santa Fe Avenue frontage becomes greater. Additionally, the applicant has been willing to reduce the height of the larger new building, Building A, located at the north end of the site, two feet lower than what the County Planning Commission had approved. This change will bring the height of the building to 35 feet along Colusa Avenue and 40 feet on the Santa Fe Avenue, from the 37 feet and 42 feet respectively that the Commission had approved. The Santa Fe Avenue side is higher because of the east-to-west downslope of about five feet that occurs on the site. The aforementioned changes are contained in the revised plans dated November 16, 2007 (Condition No. 1 of the attached conditions of approval). VIII. CONCLUSION After review of the appeal points, above, staff continues to find that the CEQA determination made remains adequate. The potential impacts from adverse visibility, . adequacy of parking, loading zone adequacy, traffic safety and soils/geotechnical impacts are either the same or less than those which were studied and found to be adequately mitigated by the earlier approval. In particular, the project is about 27% smaller in total square footage than the earlier approval. The building height is two feet JANUARY 22, 2008 • Board of Supervisors File#DP033047 Page 17 higher at one point on the Santa Fe Avenue side, but since the building is much narrower (90 feet vs. 130 feet), the overall mass and visibility impacts are less. The increased height results from the project providing a pitched roof versus the flat roof that the 1983 project had. The pitched roof is generally more architecturally interesting than a flat roof, and was recommended by KMAC. Since the current project is smaller overall but with a greater amount of parking being provided, there would be a lesser parking impact on adjacent streets than the 1983 approval. The Public Works Department and the traffic report find that there would not be significant traffic safety impacts. Conditions of approval require a loading zone and a geotechnical report. IX. CONSEQUENCES OF GRANTING NEIGHBOR'S APPEAL AND DENYING THE CURRENT PROJECT MODIFICATION REQUEST If the subject project were to be denied, the owner would then have the option of deciding whether to proceed with the project as approved in 1983, or, alternatively, to leave the existing buildings in place and presumably upgrade them for continued or renewed occupancy. As stated above, the currently proposed project is about 27% • smaller in square footage than the previously approved project. The 1983 approved project would have no off-street parking, although 14 new spaces would be provided by conversion of existing on-street, parallel spaces, to diagonal spaces. If the owner chooses not to exercise the prior approval, and instead, re-uses the existing buildings, the resulting development would have no off-street parking provided on the site to serve the existing buildings containing 10,150 square feet (gross), as well as no new on-street parking spaces. Various site improvements and amenities that are required by the 1983 project as well as by the current proposal, such as landscaped seating areas, street trees, new sidewalks, etc. would not be provided. The prospect of revitalizing this older neighborhood-serving shopping area would be substantially diminished. GACurrent Planning\curr-plan\Board\Board Orders\DP03304761DORDER 1-11-2008mp.doc ADDENDUM D.2 January 22, 2008 Colusa Circle Final Development Plan Michael Henn, Community Development Department, presented the staff report as outlined in the Board order. Chair Glover opened the hearing and called for testimony from the appellants and applicant. The following people spoke on behalf of the appellant, Rodney Paul and Marilyn Stollen: Rodney Paul said that he was very pleased with the new conditions of approval as presented today and with their adoption, he and Ms. Stollen would withdraw their appeal. Supervisor Gioia recounted the additional staff-recommended conditions of approval that were formulated following the County Planning Commission's decision and receipt of an appeal from neighbors of the project. He said that he was pleased with the outcome of the collaborative efforts of the applicant and residents and that other developments in the area would be held to the same standard as this one. Catherine Kutsuris, Community Development Department, pointed out that Condition of Approval (COA)No. S.A. called for submission of the landscaping program 30 days before the issuance of building permits. She requested this be changed to at least 45 days prior, with a special note to the applicant to submit this absolutely as soon as possible. Supervisor Gioia concurred. The following people spoke on behalf of the applicant: Ed Hammonds said he believed this was a much better project and was pleased to go forward. Chair Glover called for public comment on the matter. Jenny Schaffell, resident of Kensington, said she supports improvement of the circle and that her only objection is to the height of the project, which she feels is out of character with the community; John Van Dyle, resident of Kensington, said he objects to the overall height and mass of the development. He also said he is concerned about the speed of cars on the street and the impact of increased traffic; Paul Burns, resident of Kensington, said he was concerned about the parking not being adequate and how much loss of pedestrian walkway there would be. He also said he did not feel the size of the development was in character for the area; Janet Little, resident of Kensington, commented that the original 1983 approval was for a two-story building and she believed that to be the more appropriate size. Ms. Little and Supervisor Gioia agreed that the surfacing material used in the streetscape should be consistent throughout the area. Chair Glover closed the public hearing and returned the matter to the Board for questions and comments. ADDI~NDUM nc 2 D.2 January 22,2008 Colusa Circle Final Development Plan Michael Henn noted that COA No. 5 should also include Santa Fe Avenue in section A, and requested the insertion of the word `generally' before the designation of 20 feet centers to allow for leeway should the diagonal spacing of the parking cause the measurement to be too close to the planter. Supervisor Gioia agreed. Supervisor Gioia also recommended that the conditions of approval be modified to allow the Office of the District I Supervisor an opportunity to review and comment on the project improvement plans prior to any approval decision required by the Zoning Administrator. By unanimous vote with all Supervisors present, the Board took the following actions: DETERMINED the 1983 CEQA review and Mitigated Negative Declaration determination for the original Colusa Circle Final Development Plans satisfies the review requirements of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the current project; ACCEPTED the WITHDRAWAL of the appeal of Rodney Paul and Marilyn Stollon; SUSTAINED the County Planning Commission approval, subject to additional conditions, as presented and modified today; ADOPTED the findings of the County Planning Commission as the basis for the Boards actions; and DIRECTED the Community Development Department to post a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk. • RECOMMENDED BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FINDINGS Exhibit "A" FINDINGS FOR THE COLUSA CIRCLE INVESTORS'REQUEST TO MODIFY PHASES III AND IV OF FILE#DP3056-82,FOR THE PLANNED UNIT DISTRICT AND COLUSA CIRCLE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN,FILE#DP033047,IN THE KENSINGTON AREA, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS (Triangle Building Project) FINDINGS, the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County Finds as Follows: A. Project's Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act This Board finds that the 1983 environmental review and Mitigated Negative Declaration determination for the original Final Development Plan is applicable for this project for the reasons indicated in County Planning Commission Resolution #24-2007. The proposed modifications would reduce the size of the office/retail development that is currently allowed on this site, and allow for it to more closely conform to current Commercial General Plan design parameters that apply to this site. The revisions to the project design made after the Planning Commission approval further reduce the environmental impacts by lowering the building height and providing additional landscaping and pedestrian/customer amenities. • B. Consistency with General Plan Growth Management Performance Standards 1. Traffic—This Board finds that to improve regional traffic circulation and safety,the applicant shall construct or repair sidewalks along the property frontage. Widening and the provision of on-street parking along the Santa Fe Avenue right-of-way will be provided to achieve the adopted standard. The project will not create more than 100 peak-period trips. Therefore a special traffic congestion analysis is not required. 2. Water - This Board finds that the County pursuant to its police power and as the proper governmental entity responsible for directly regulating land use density or intensity, property development and the subdivision of property within the unincorporated areas of the County, shall require new development to demonstrate that adequate water quantity and quality can be provided. The Board finds that East Bay Municipal Utility District has indicated that they can adequately serve the project subject to the district's standards and conditions. The applicant shall bear all expenses associated with constructing a water system capable of meeting the fire flow and water demand and water quality requirements of the water district and of the fire district. 3. Sanitary Sewer- This Board finds that the County pursuant to its police power and as the proper governmental entity responsible for directly regulating land use density or intensity, property development and the subdivision of property within the unincorporated areas of the County, shall require new development to demonstrate Exhibit "A" Board of Supervisors Findings Triangle Building Project Amended Final Development Plan File#DP03-3047 • Colusa Circle Investors,Kensington area that adequate sanitary sewer quantity and quality can be provided. The Board finds that the Stege Sanitary District has responded that it can serve the project subject to standard fees, specifications, and conditions. 4. Fire Protection—This Board finds that Fire stations shall be located within one and one-half miles of developments in urban, suburban and central business district areas. The nearest fire station is located approximately 0.6 miles from the site at 218 Arlington. The applicant's engineer shall design the project to meet the requirements of the Kensington Fire Protection District. 5. Public Protection—This Board finds that the project will not result in a population increase of 1000 people, therefore there are no special capital improvements contributions required of this project. 6. Parks and Recreation — No neighborhood parks or playfields are proposed in the proposed commercial project. Provision of dedication of parkland or in lieu fees is only mandated for residential projects. 7. Flood Control and Drainaize—The new development will finance the full costs of drainage improvements necessary to accommodate peak flows due to the project.No development within a 100-year flood plain is proposed. (Ref: the Growth Management Element of the General Plan) B. Findings for Approval and Modification of a Final Development Plan within a Planned Unit District In approving a request for modification to an existing approved Final Development Plan, this Board finds that the changes are consistent with the intent and purpose of the P-1 district and compatible with other uses in the vicinity, both inside and outside the district.Pursuant to that obligation,the proposed project must remain consistent with the findings required for the approval of a Planned Unit District, as follows: 1. The applicant intends to start construction within two and one-half years from the effective date of the zoning change and plan approval; Project Finding- This Board finds that the applicant has indicated that they intend to commence construction within 2 Y:years ofthe effective date ofthe developmentplan approval. • 2. The proposed planned unit development is consistent with the county general plan. A-2 Exhibit "A" Board of Supervisors Findings Triangle Building Project Amended Final Development Plan File#DP03-3047 • Colusa Circle Investors,Kensington area Project Finding- This Board finds that the project as conditioned is consistent with the Commercial land use designation of the General Plan and with the goals and policies of the General Plan and with the special policies that apply to the Kensington community as they pertain to this site. The Land Use Element contains several relevant policies for the Kensington area: Policy 3-191:Allow for review of new residential development that provides reasonable protection for existing residences in the Kensington community with regards to: view, design compatibility, (including building bulk, size, and height), adequate parking,privacy and access to sunlight. This Board finds that the review of the proposed project provides the reasonable protection for existing residences in the community with regards to view, design compatibility, adequate parking, privacy and access to sunlight in that the design impacts views less than an already approved larger project, that the design is attractive and interesting and compatible with the other commercial and residential uses in the vicinity, and that a significant increase in available off-streetparking will be provided over what exists or over what was previously approved, and that a • shadow study demonstrates that the proposed buildings will primarily cast their shadows on the street and will not cast shade on any adjacent residences, nor would the buildings have any impact on privacy because the upper windows are directed toward public streets and not toward any residential lot's private spaces. Policy 3-192: Preservation of views of scenic natural features (e.g. bay, mountains)and the developed environment(e.g.bridges,city skyline)should be incorporated into the review of development applications. This Board finds that the review of the project preserves the scenic natural features and developed environment in that the design impacts views less than an already approved larger project, that the design is attractive and interesting and compatible with the other commercial and residential uses in the vicinity, and that the removal of older evergreen, non-native trees will actually increase views for area residents. Policy 3-193: Review proposed residential development for design compatibility with nearby development (e.g. building mass, height, mechanical devices) and provision for adequate parking. This Board finds that the proposed design is compatible with area residential and commercial development and that there is a taller four-story apartment building across Colusa Avenue and a three-story apartment building to the east on Colusa • Circle, and that a required planting of street trees will soften and beautify the project and those trees would not have been required or provided without the project A-3 Exhibit "A" Board of Supervisors Findings Triangle Building Project Amended Final Development Plan File#DP03-3047 • Colusa Circle Investors,Kensington area approval. The mechanical equipment will be screened so as not to be visible from any public place. The on and off-street parking will be provided at a level that will be adequate based on a parking study required for the subject project. Policy 3-194:New residential development will be reviewed against realistic impacts of privacy and sunlight on surrounding neighbors. This Board finds that the project has been reviewed against realistic impacts on privacy and sunlight and that a shadow study demonstrates that the proposed buildings will primarily cast their shadows onto the street and will not cast shade on any adjacent residences, nor would the buildings have any impact on privacy because the upper windows are directed toward public streets and not toward any residential lot's private spaces. Policy 3-195: Consideration will be given to review of non-residential development in the Kensington community with policies 3-191 through 3- 194 herein. This Board finds that the review of subject non-residential development has been • reviewed against the guidelines contained in policies 3-191 through 3-194. 3. In the case of the commercial development,the proposed development is needed at the proposed location to provide adequate commercial facilities of the type proposed, and that traffic congestion will not likely be created by the proposed center,or will be obviated by presently projected improvements and by demonstrable provisions in the plan for proper entrances and exits, and by internal provisions for traffic and parking, and that the development will be an attractive and efficient center which will fit harmoniously into and will have no adverse effects upon the adjacent or surrounding development. Project Finding- This Board finds that the proposed modifications to the previously approved planned commercial development is designed as a small retail and office project that will serve the needs of area residents. The project will constitute a commercial environment of sustained desirability and stability. The proposed commercial infill development will be in harmony with the existing development in the area. The architecture, usable open space, and other amenities, and landscaping provided will provide adequate separation between the subject property and adjacent use. Based on a parking and traffic study, the parking and traffic impacts have been determined not to be significant and needed improvements in the public right-of-way including e sidewalks, street trees and other landscaping will be provided. With the proposed modifications the project will have lesser impacts than the existing • approved project. A-4 Exhibit "A" Board of Supervisors Findings Triangle Building Project • Amended Final Development Plan File#DP03-3047 Colusa Circle Investors,Kensington area 4. The development of a harmonious integrated plan justifies exceptions from the normal application of this code. Project Finding- This Board finds that while there are several exceptions from the normal regulations of the RB district, the design of subject project is not substantially different from an all-retail project that could be allowed in the RB zoning district. The exceptions from the RB zoning district include reduced setbacks, limiting the range of retail and office uses, and a reduced number of off-street parking spaces. These exceptions are compatible with the goal of achieving a harmonious integrated plan in that a larger project with a more substantial decrease in off-street parking could be built under the un-expired prior approval. Additional private open space and common private area amenities and public area amenities are able to be provided. (Ref§ 84-66.1406 of the County Code) C. Finding to Modify a Final Development Plan. In approving the modification application, the County shall find that it is consistent with the intent and purpose of the P-1 district and compatible with other uses in the vicinity, both inside and outside the district. Project Finding- This Board finds that the planned unit district is intended to allow diversification in the relationship of various uses, buildings, structures, lot sizes and open spaces while insuring substantial compliance with the general plan and the intent of the county code in requiring adequate standards necessary to satisfy the requirements of the public health, safety and general welfare. These standards shall be observed without unduly inhibiting the advantages of large-scale site or special area planning. The subject project allows for a diversity of uses as well as providing a variety of relationships between buildings and structures in that the buildings are proposed to create a variety of relationships between the fronting three streets and the proposed buildings that will exhibit attractive elevations toward all street frontages. Additionally, an unusual amount of the site and adjacent right-of-way is being devoted to pedestrian and customer amenities such that there will be four areas for outdoor seating with one located at both the north and south ends of the Colusa Avenue frontage and two internal outdoor seating areas, one to the west of the most southerly building at a location where the customers will be sheltered from wind, and another at a raised deck located to the west of Building A. The provision of a significantly larger amount of on and off-street parking than presently exists or was approved in the 1983 approval will benefit the health, safety and general welfare of the area. The two bulbs in the right-of-way will act as traffic calming measures to better protect shoppers from traffic on the abutting streets. A-5 Exhibit "A" Board of Supervisors Findings Triangle Building Project • Amended Final Development Plan File#DP03-3047 Colusa Circle Investors,Kensington area (Ref § 84-66.1804—b of the County Code) G:\Current Planning\curr-plan\Staff Reports\dp033047BdReso-b.doc • A-6 • COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 24-2007 • Resolution No. 24-2007 RESOLUTION OF THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, REGARDING THE APPLICATION BY ED HAMMONDS (APPLICANT), AND COLUSA CIRCLE INVESTORS AND WADA FAMILY TRUST (OWNERS); COUNTY FILE #DP033047 TO ALLOW MODIFICATIONS TO THE APPROVED 1983 COLUSA CIRCLE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (FDP) FOR AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD SHOPPING CENTER FOR THE APPROXIMATELY 0.32 ACRE PROPERTY, LOCATED AT 370 TO 388 COLUSA AVENUE IN THE KENSINGTON AREA. WHEREAS, on June 28, 1983, after conducting a noticed public hearing, the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County rezoned three corner properties at Colusa Circle in the Kensington area of the County to the Planned Unit (P-1) District, and approved the Colusa Circle Final Development Plan, County File#3056-82 filed by Edward Y. Hammonds, allowing for retail, restaurant and office development within four defined project phased areas; the Board determined that the applications were consistent with the General Plan designation for this site; WHEREAS, as part of the approval action, for purposes of determining the project's compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Board of Supervisors also determined that the project might result in the significant effects in the following subject areas: parking, delivery access, traffic lane width, and soils; but included measures in the approval that would mitigate those impacts to a less than significant level, and adopted a Mitigated (Conditional)Negative Declaration determination for the project; WHEREAS, in 1985, the Colusa Circle Final Development Plan was exercised by development of the Phase I portion of the site, and thus allowing the remaining phases of this approval to be implemented at any time; WHEREAS, as part of the 1991 General Plan update, the Commercial (CO) General Plan designation that applies to this site was modified to provide for specific design parameters including maximum building height, maximum building coverage, and maximum floor-to-area ratio (FAR); WHEREAS, On July 28, 2003, Edward Hammonds filed an application with the Community Development Department for a modification to the approved Final Development Plan (FDP) on Colusa Avenue in Kensington, County File #DP03-3047 pertaining to a 0.32 acre triangular block constituting the Phase III and IV areas of the 1983 Colusa Circle FDP; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department determined that for purposes of compliance with CEQA, the project had not substantially changed from the 1983 approval, and that the Mitigated Negative Declaration remains valid for the current application; • County Planning Commission Resolution No. 24-2007 Proposed Modifications to Phases III and IV of Colusa Circle,Kensington area WHEREAS, on August 14, 2007, after notice having been lawfully given, the County Planning Commission held a public hearing at which time all persons interested were provided the opportunity to testify on the application to modify the application; WHEREAS, the County Planning Commission having fully considered all testimony and evidence presented in this matter, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that in light of the whole record, the County Planning Commission of the County of Contra Costa, State of California finds that there is no substantial evidence that the proposed modifications constitute substantial changes which would require major revisions to the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration determination due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; that the proposed modifications would reduce the size of the project, provide for additional parking, and bring the project more in conformance with the design parameters of the General Plan designation for this site; accordingly, this Commission finds that the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration that was adopted for the 1983 FDP remains valid for the current project pursuant to California CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a). Further, this determination reflects the County Planning Commission's independent • judgment and analysis; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the County Planning Commission makes the following findings with respect to General Plan and ordinance provisions: A. General Plan Growth Management Element Performance Standards 1. Traffic - To improve regional traffic circulation and safety, the applicant shall construct or repair sidewalks along the property frontage. Widening and the provision of on-street parking along the Santa Fe Avenue right-of-way will be provided to achieve the adopted standard. The project will not create more than 100 peak-period trips. Therefore a special traffic congestion analysis is not required. 2. Water - The County pursuant to its police power and as the proper governmental entity responsible for directly regulating land use density or intensity, property development and the subdivision of property within the unincorporated areas of the County, shall require new development to demonstrate that adequate water quantity and quality can be provided. The East Bay Municipal Utility District has indicated that they can adequately serve the project subject to the district's standards and conditions. The applicant shall bear all expenses associated with constructing a water system capable of meeting the fire flow and water demand • and water quality requirements of the water district and of the fire district. 2 • County Planning Commission Resolution No. 24-2007 Proposed Modifications to Phases III and IV of Colusa Circle,Kensington area 3. Sanitary Sewer - The County pursuant to its police power and as the proper governmental entity responsible for directly regulating land use density or intensity, property development and the subdivision of property within the unincorporated areas of the County, shall require new development to demonstrate that adequate sanitary sewer quantity and quality can be provided. The Stege Sanitary District has responded that it can serve the project subject to standard fees, specifications, and conditions. 4. Fire Protection - Fire stations shall be located within one and one-half miles of developments in urban, suburban and central business district areas. The nearest fire station is located approximately 0.6 miles from the site at 218 Arlington. The applicant's engineer shall design the project to meet the requirements of the Kensington Fire Protection District. 5. Public Protection — The project will not result in a population increase of 1000 people, therefore there are no special capital improvements contributions required of this project. • 6. Parks and Recreation — No neighborhood, parks or playfields are proposed in the proposed commercial project. Provision of dedication of parkland or in lieu fees is only mandated for residential projects. 7. Flood Control and Drainage— The new development will finance the full costs of drainage improvements necessary to accommodate peak flows due to the project. No development within a 100-year flood plain is proposed. (Ref: the Growth Management Element of the General Plan) B. Findings for Approval of a Final Development Plan that is zoned Planned Unit District The Zoning Administrator, or approving body, in approving a request for modification to an existing approved Final Development Plan must find that the changes are consistent with the intent and purpose of the P-1 district and compatible with other uses in the vicinity, both inside and outside the district. Pursuant to that obligation, the proposed project must remain consistent with the findings required for the approval of a Planned Unit District, as follows: 1. The applicant intends to start construction within two and one-half years from the effective date of the zoning change and plan approval; Project Finding- The applicant has indicated that they intend to commence • construction within 2 'V2 years of the effective date of the development plan approval. 3 • County Planning Commission Resolution No. 24-2007 Proposed Modifications to Phases III and IV of Colusa Circle,Kensington area 2. The proposed planned unit development is consistent with the county general plan. Project Finding- The project as conditioned is consistent with the land use designation of the General Plan and with the goals and policies of the General Plan, as applicable to this application, and with the special policies that apply to the Kensington community as they pertain to this site. The project as designed and conditioned would allow this project to be built in greater conformance with the design parameters of the Commercial General Plan designation that applies to this site. (e.g., maximum building height, building coverage,floor-to-area ratio). 3. In the case of the commercial development, the proposed development is needed at the proposed location to provide adequate commercial facilities of the type proposed, and that traffic congestion will not likely be created by the proposed center, or will be obviated by presently projected improvements and by demonstrable provisions in the plan for proper entrances and exits, and by internal provisions for traffic and parking, and that the development will be an attractive and efficient center which will fit harmoniously into and will have no adverse effects upon the adjacent or • surrounding development. Project Finding- The proposed modifications to the previously approved planned commercial development is designed as a small retail and office project that will serve the needs of area residents. The project will constitute a commercial environment of sustained desirability and stability. The proposed commercial infill development will be in harmony with the existing development in the area. The architecture, usable open space, and other amenities, and landscaping provided will provide adequate separation between the subject property and adjacent uses. Adequate parking is being provided. Traffic impacts have been determined not to be significant and needed improvements in the public right-of-way including sidewalks, street trees and other landscaping will be provided. With the proposed modifications the project will have lesser impacts than the existing approved project. 4. The development of a harmonious integrated plan justifies exceptions from the normal application of this code. Project Finding- While there are several exceptions from the normal regulations of the RB district, the design of subject project is not substantially different from an all- retail project that could be allowed in the RB zoning district. The exceptions from the RB zoning district include reduced setbacks, limiting the range of retail and office uses, and a reduced number of off-street parking spaces. These exceptions are • compatible with the goal of achieving a harmonious integrated plan in that a larger project with a more substantial decrease in off-street parking could be built under 4 • County Planning Commission Resolution No. 24-2007 Proposed Modifications to Phases III and IV of Colusa Circle,Kensington area the unexpired prior approval. Additional private open spaces and common area amenities are able to be provided. (Ref§ 84-66.1406 of the County Code) BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County Planning Commission at its meeting of August 14, 2007, by a 3-2 vote, with two members absent, approved the proposed amendment to the Final Development Plan, File #DP033047, subject to conditions of approval. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary of the County Planning Commission of Contra Costa County shall sign and attest the certified copy of this resolution and deliver the same to the Board of Supervisors, all in accordance with the Government Code of the State of California, AYES: Commissioners- Terrell, Murray, and Snyder NOES: Commissioners- Battaglia, Wong • ABSENT: Commissioners- Gaddis, Clark ABSTAIN: Commissioner None HYMAN WONG, Chairman County Planning Commission County of Contra Costa, State of California ATTEST: DENNIS M. BARRY, Secret County Planning Commission County of Contra Costa County, State of California G:\Current Planning\curr-plan\Staff Reports\DP033047CPCReso24-2007-b.doc 5 AREA MAPS, CURRENT PLAN AND 1983 APPROVAL DP033047 General Plan & Zoning Map Legend Site D Parcels Valley URd o CD --- County Boundary L7J Zoning a General Plan SH (Single Family - High) CO (Commercial) OS (Open Space) Lynn Ave �m 0 0 c N Ql R-6 SITE ",ensington EI-Cerrito R_B e OaKV\e� Av P-1 P-1 ii o� m 4`e �\ev' me cn R_B m orea� R. a Y G 001 = m °rIV G°-- °u �y R_6 G eda G r P Ward Ave N Map created 3/8/2007 Feet by Contra Costa County Community Development,GIS Group 0 55 110 220 330 440 651 Pine Street,4th Floor North Wing,Martinez,CA 94553-0095 r 37:59:48.455N 122:06:35.384W This map contains copyrighted information and may not be altered. It may be reproduced in its current state if the source is cited.Users of this map agree to read and accept the County of Contra Costa disclaimer of liability for geographic information. DP033047 Vicinity Map with Site Addresses and other pending applications 337 =— 336 i 40 343 338 Legend Q Site 1 5 0349 340 1: 1 Other Pending Applications 1 1 P 357 0 Parcels 353 --- County Boundary 14 �Pe359 334 325 145 363 338 337 141 367 342 339 139 377 DP073041 343 1619 385 389 135 353 1611 Subject 370 Site 131 • E1157 rrito 372 382 Colusa O6O()A CircleS401 125 a) Oakv�e�N,A�e 411 U C c>3 0 ��45 121 c U-) 398 d,q V Cl) i > 400 e 119 _ C) M ' 406im 406 410 '- 412 115 408 a 407 414 111 411 'CD 410 - --- l 409 418 105 415 412 aD m 415 422 417 414 --- o��X'-4 411 425 G , 421 416 Gos�a 418 429 a e\e� N 5G 6 Map created 3/8/2007 Feet by Contra Costa County Community Development,GIS Group 0 25 50 100 150 200 651 Pine Street,4th Floor North Wing,Martinez,CA 94553-0095 37:59:48.455N 122:06:35.384W This map contains copyrighted information and may not be altered. It may be reproduced in its current state if the source is cited.Users of this map agree to read and accent the Countv of Contra Costa disclaimer of liabilitv for oeooraohic information. ze�x m ' e3 � � a mx4 -oN: o min �� P 41,0. )_ 2. O _ a= �m S A N T A FE A V E. . a m O Z an SUBJECT SITE cno T --1 z mr- PHASES III & IV 0 cC ° 0 0 Z m(n r _ C .F p ^O Ma O a� . TO `" a r Z F �P -i y o -0n z ,r D Zm cn rW r BERKELEY PARK BLV W Z _ p O G A q RIr PHASEI 7 p 0 n Y c' x C7 PHASE II o s f fill r-7 �Td�, z v�p! - 5 c in 41 4 4 � 6 p 6 g € g € g en� av 5 n E _ kk e IL -44 Ell ¢+ eF W © O ;f ) tiz , t.t ra sg N o f7; V Z L c: u TTI o d r em - 19 E OV 0 J V 0 W 8 8 Y • ------------------ .S f eg a ........... ..---- ........ ................ gs ` • s x 4 Q S � � •x4 g F� a Fit w L u 4-1 m N f0 V J U h h M N C O � Q U m n 4 m Q 80 8 0 S w E <,1 A+ wr i5 Z 0 m� o / N -- ---- ----------- -- - Q � M r. c _ -5 o - IL N ».».....SANTA..F.E..............._...._........ -.. y u ills N o QQION H3 a i O - m. � C n 8 W ren � N J 'd N � _ I / @ e Q ) \® . : 91N, Eva E � \ ± / IT] /u < »$ z ` 2 ^< � � AL ) \ ---- - . . ._ --- -- � �- - —- ° - ._ . . . . _ - . � --- - — lu\ ): 2 m � Z ~a) f® ® § \ coz \ \ �z . \ ) r B � U, 15e �. J JIM T E �, G r; a o � � m t:Y4 w 1 k I �ilwTl I l -;61 3, E EO FEO ED ® t .w 15 In m ED �• 3 € W N Ll � dj ° s Zr) _ R is z r Fq zi in • 1 �� Tdo z 0 1p C' J F J �' - Q Uo 8all! e El El - i PORI j �..��p 1 t___ II 1 LL 1 B E3 - e � O � c _ O dj W J s U � s o � N k - n iLJ z 50 iSZ eY. e x rpm • � v � u.l J N r�L'y A wy, � N a • T � 2 Z • 'I 4�cAi ., r- � y h � i w � i r ' P yY �f �a 1 « F • S Z kl- U °f\ .. U LJ J d ills M o • � ��` �� _z � � � o � � � ,� 0 5_ o �'i X38,4 LL Ec t i� w k� y�1144' r FLU — i �r El s Lj Li c N .cr � K ..� }i? } ��R �� •'wrl Santa Fe Avenue Frontage - `;:+ ky ` Looking South � '� �� 1983 APPROVED CONDITIONS & PLANS • CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF 2539-RZ 1. This approval is based upon the exhibits received by the Planning Department and listed as follows: A. Exhibit "A" - Development plan entitled "Colusa Circle Master Development Plan", received November 3, 1982, together with floor plans and elevations. B. Exhibit "B" - Development plan revisions for part of project entitled "Colusa Circle Master Development Plan" received March 7, 1983 together with revised floor plans and elevations. C. Exhibit 'C' letters dated November 9, 1982, and February 22, 1983, from the applicant listing the specific square footages and uses for each parcel. The total building square footage and uses shall not exceed those shown in the letters unless specifically allowed in these conditions or conditions of the final develop- ment plan. 2. The development shall be developed in four phases as follows: Phase I: Site between Colusa Circle and Berkeley Park Boulevard, together with sidewalk treatment and landscaping on site. Phase II: Site at corner of Colusa Avenue and Oak View Avenues, and sidewalk treatment and landscaping on the rest of Colusa Circle. • Phase III: Site at corner of Santa Fe, Oak View and Colusa Avenue, infill addition on Colusa Avenue and conversion of garages on Oak View Avenue together with diagonal parking on Santa Fe, oak View Avenues and sidewalk treatment and landscaping on Santa Fe, Colusa and Oak View Avenues. Phase IV: The rest of the triangular building at the corner of Oak View and Santa Fe .Avenues together with any additional street or traffic changes required. 3. Approval of this proposal is based on the plans and statements submitted as modified by these conditions. However, each segment of the proposed development shall be subject to further review by the Zoning Administrator. It may be that additional requirements, conditions and/or modifications may be specified during such review. 4. Prior to commencement of construction on Phase III of the project, there shall be a review of anticipated impacts of Phases III and IV by the Zoning Administrator. 1 Y • l • CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR DEVELOPMENT PLAN 3056-82 1. This approval is based upon the exhibits received by the Planning Department and listed as follows: A. Exhibit "A": Development plan entitled "Colusa Circle Master Development Plan" received November 3, 1982, together with floor plans and elevations. B. Exhibit "B": Development Plan revisions for part of project entitled "Colusa Circle Master Development Plan" received March 7, 1983, together with revised floor plans and elevations. C. Exhibit 'C' letters dated November 9, 1982, and February 22, 1983', from the applicant listing the specific square footages and uses for each parcel. The total building square footage and uses shall not exceed those shown in the letters unless specifically allowed in these conditions or conditions of the final develop- ment plan. 2. The total number of businesses within the complex shall not exceed 30. 3. This approval is subject to adoption of an Ordinance for the rezoning of the subject property under application 2539-RZ. The final number and layout of buildings shall reflect the Board's approval. . 4. The proposed buildings shall be similar to that .shown on submitted plans. Prior to the issuance of a building permit elevations and architectural design of the building and building roofing material shall be submitted for final review and approval by the County Zoning Administrator. The roofs and exterior walls of the building shall be free of such objects as air-conditioning or utility equipment, television aerials, etc., or they shall be screened f rom view. 5. Comply with landscaping, sidewalk treatment and lighting requirements as follows: A. A landscaping program for street trees shall be submitted for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator at least 30 days prior to issuance of building permits. A cost estimate shall be submitted with the landscaping program plan. A means for the maintenance of street trees shall be established. Street trees along Colusa Avenue shall be planted on 20' centers subject to ZA review. B. All trees shall be 15 gallon size. Trees should be of a drought-tolerant type and all of the same species. C. At least 30 days prior to issuance of building permits a sidewalk plan and street lighting plan will be submitted to the County Zoning Administrator for-review and approval. 6. Phasing of the developmen, is approved for four phases subject to review and modification of the ZA. The phases are to be as follows: • pg. 2 A. Phase I: Development of the one-story building between Colusa Avenue and Berkeley Park Boulevard along with 3 off-street parking spaces along with sidewalk improvements and street tree planting on site's frontage. _ B. Phase II: Development of the site between Colusa and Oak View Avenue which may include a 120-seat restaurant and retail shops. The 36-space, two-level parking structure shall be constructed at this time. C. Phase III: Development of the two-story building at the corner of Colusa and Santa Fe Avenues, the infilling of a building along Colusa Avenue and the first floor of 1537 Oak View Avenue along with sidewalk improvements and street tree planting along Colusa and Santa Fe Avenues and diagonal parking on Santa Fe and Oak View Avenues. D. Phase IV: Development of the rest of the site between Santa Fe and Oak View Avenues together with any other street, sidewalk or landscaping improvements required. 7. Prior to commencement of construction on Phase III of the project, there shall be a review of anticipated impacts of Phases III and IV by the Zoning Administrator. 8. At least 60 days prior to issuance of building permits a sign program for the project shall be submitted for the Zoning Administrator's review and approval. - 9. If deemed necessary by the Zoning Administrator and at the request of the • neighborhood the developer shall apply for the establishment of a permit parking zone within 300 feet of the development. This includes the area within the unincorporated area. The developer shall pay. to have the required signs erected if the zone is established. 10. Parking and driveway areas shall be paved so as to prevent ponding of water or the creation of dust. 11. Uses such as video game arcades, bars, pool halls, card rooms and fast-food take-out establishments shall not be allowed in this complex with the exception of one take- out ice cream store and one take-out bakery. 12. Soils-geologic reports shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator at least 60 days prior to issuance of any building permits. This report can be done phase by phase or all at once. 13. Means to reduce the odor of cooking from the restaurant shall be taken if feasible. 14. The restaurant shall remain primarily a restaurant. It shall not be converted to'a night club or cocktail lounge without amendment to this final development plan. 15. The Zoning Administrator shall review and approve all uses within the project prior to ` their establishment. 16. The matter of the final configuration of Colusa Circle or intersection shall be reviewed by the Zoning Administrator prior to approval of Phase III. Required improvements shall be constructed as part of Phase III. """i D D pg. 3 • 17. One on-street delivery space shall be provided.• Its location shall be approved by the Zoning Administrator. the space shall be clearly signed as parking for delivery vehicles. 18. Comply with the requirements of the Public Works Department as follows: A. In accordance with Section 82-2. 014 of the County Ordinance Code, this development shall conform to the. requirements of Division 914 (Drainage) of the Subdivision Ordinance. B. Mitigate the impacts of traffic and additional parking demand generated by this development by: . 1. Providing six additional feet of pavement on the east side of Santa Fe Avenue in order to provide for a• minimum 15-foot wide northbound travel lane, a 14-foot wide southbound lane, a 9-foot parking lane on the west side of Santa Fe Avenue and 60 -degrees diagonal parking on the east side of Santa Fe Avenue. 2. Converting Oak View Avenue to one-way, westbound, and construct adequate pavement widening in order to provide for 60 degrees diagonal parking on the north side of Oak View Avenue, a 15-foot travelled way, a 9-foot parking lane on the south side, and an • adequate sidewalk on the north side of Oak View Avenue. 3. Constructing curb and sidewalk along the frontages of the above properties. C. Prior to the issuance of any building permits involving the use of floor overhangs over the public right of wav, resolve to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department, the legal terms so that the use of proposed overhangs will not constitute a grant of public funds. D. Prevent storm drainage, originating on the property and conveyed in a concentrated manner, from draining across the sidewalk or on driveways. E. Furnish proof to the Public Works Department, Land Development Division, of the acquisitor -)f all necessary rights of entry, permits and/or easements for tri construction of off-site, temporary or permanent, road and drain: ae improvements . This shall include any necessary permits and/or approvals for construction of any necessary improvementL within City limits. F. Instal all new utility distribution services underground. G. Install street liahts on Santa Fe Avenue, Oak View Road, and Berkeley Park Boulevard . The final number and location will be determined by the utility company and approved by the Traffic Engineer and Zoning • Administrator. . pg. 4 H. Submit improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer to the Public Works Department, Land Development Division, for review; pay the inspection, plan review and applicable lighting fees. These plans shall include any necessary traffic signing and striping plans for review by the County Traffic Engineer. The improvement plans shall be submitted to the Public Works Department, Land Development Division, prior to the issuance of any building permit. The review of improvement plans and payment of all fees shall be completed prior to the clearance of any building for occupancy by the Public Works Department. If occupancy is requested prior to construction of improve- ments , the applicant shall execute a road improvement agreement with Contra Costa County and post the bonds required by the agreement to guarantee completion of the work. I . Obtain an encroachment permit from the Public forks Department, Land Development Division, for construction of driveways or other impr o-vements within the right of way of Colusa Avenue, Santa Fe Avenue, Oak View Road, and Berkeley Park Boulevard. J. Submit a phase construction plan subject to the approval of the Public Works Department with the improvement plans. TB:jal 3056.82 .315.t3 cc: Ed+,ard Hammonds ELS Design Group The following are not conditions of approval; but, the developer should be aware of them prior to applying for building permits : a. Comply with the requirements of the County Building Inspection Department. b. Comply with the requirements of the Stege Sanitary District. C . Comply with the requirements of the Health Department in regard to the food establishments . d. Comply with the requirements of the Kensington Fire District. �ID O� .-CZY `1 LLJ t +� m 1 IL I I \ -� ''-' n - 9 \✓ > a W m a CO �. LL � I I Q � ...`sem ------------' I' CA Q �•Y-'sT Ott' m IL, �7 ,9 LL 6s � �• O J Q J L J w Q W J x , U W x LLLL to LLJ J O uU f O V \ *� • Z W H C7 0O LD LL Z VI J z U ? LLO 0 ~ U N 3 LAI w 'x W L) X W X W l/St�(D WZ � WZwZ � � 3 \ 1, � '`�,1,•n�� ^1 r r a m k I I to j \� T TTII : r O LL z� ` U W F U) LL LL LL O O O O J 'W V1 L1 V1 V1 J VO O N J V O J In N �O Q F` co LU co N N =J x L-) ULLI ~ O m Z f w I LL�Yy Ln O m N m ry J L) O _U o .. .. .. • Z 2 Q z U Z LL LL W 0 0 .. ''nn .. j N U F O (1� CO W p V �W wzu wzwz Q w LLOZo a V � J Z a Z J Y O L aoo < m < mo W ww� o Q a N N ( n 2 L7 1A F- Ln r 1 C� Q E mow EDE E ® D m OF]MAJOR Fir > I j � j Q Q i Q cn ,w �. LL® ._PEI 0 Y J > r� Q O . - U Z _ IK BEk- i V) Z LU ` : -�� ► w ORDINANCE NO. 83-27 Re-Zoning Land in the Kensington Area) The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows: SECTION I. Page N-6 of the County's 1978 Zoning Map (Ord, No. 78- 93) is amended by re-zoning the land in the above area shown shaded on the map(s) attached hereto and incorporated herein (see .also County Planning Department File No. 25 39-RZ ) - R-B Retail Business FROM: Land Use District R-6 ( Single Family Residential ) TO: Land Use District P-1 ( Planned Unit Development ) • and the Planning Director shall change the Zoning Map accordingly, pursuant to Ordinance Code Sec. 84-2.003. O n � f AN E i C 1 'SIN51 RD 'q n , V♦ 4 co" - f A •1` V �/ e ►Vt - ENpY AL Lf M � w W ' W • Q MhE -BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on June 28, 1983 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Powers, Fanden, McPeak, Torlakson, Schroder. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. SUBJECT: Rezoning Application 2539-RZ and Development Plan No. 3056-82 Filed by Edward Y. Hammonds, Kensington Area. The Board on June 7, 1983 having declared its intent to approve the application of Edward Y. Hammonds (2539-RZ) to rezone a 27,290 foot area consisting of three separate parcels from Retail Business District (R-B) and Single Family Residential District (R-6) to Planned Unit District (P-1 ) with a requested variance for property size, and for approval of Development Plan No. 3056-82 to establish retail shops, offices and a restaurant in the Kensington area, and having directed staff to prepare appropriate findings and conditions for Board consideration this day; and Harvey Bragdon, Assistant Director of Planning, having submitted proposed findings of fact and conditions of approval ; IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that rezoning application 2539-RZ and Development Plan No. 3056-82 are APPROVED subject to conditions and based on certain findings of fact (Exhibits A and B .attached hereto -and by reference made a part hereof). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Ordinance No. 83-27 giving effect to the aforesaid rezoning is hereby INTRODUCED, READING WAIVED and July 12, 1983 fixed for ADOPTION thereof. 1 hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Superyi3om on the date shown. ATTESTED: J.R. OLSSON, C.O.Ul.i Y CLE RX and ex officio CIe., ,of the Board By g29i ,Deputy a Y� 1 l� Orig. Dept. Clerk of the Board 6' ' cc: Edward Y. Hammonds Director of Planning Public Works Director Kensington Community Service District Building Inspection County Health Department County Assessor Alletta Belin 396 Hayes St. , San Francisco, CA 94102 Inez Hennix 1605 Ocean Vie;v, Kensinnton, CA. 94707 BOARD OF SUPERVISOI;S OF ' • CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA . REZONING NO. 2539-RZ ) RESOLUTION NO. 83/880 and ) FINAL DEVELOPMENT PIAN ) NO. 3056-82 ) The Board of Supervisors having fixed this'tire for the adoption of this Resolution containing findings and conditions, and providing for adop- tion of Ordinance NO-83-27 introduced on June 28 , 1987, approving rezoning 2539-RZ and approving final development plan 3056-82, Edward Y. Ram ands ("Applicant"), P.E. Whitten ("Owner"); and WHEREAS, Applicant has requested the rezoning of the subject properties fran Retail Business (R-B) and Single Family Residential (R-6) Districts to Planned Unit District (P-1) (2539-RZ) and for approval of a final develop- ment plan which was filed concurrently (3056-62) with the request for rezoning; and WHEREAS, the subject properties owned by Applicant and Owner consist of Lots 1 through 7, Block N; Lot 1, Block L; and Lots 1 and 2, Block J of the amended map of Berkeley Park Subdivision located at Colusa Circle in the Kensington area, containing approximately 27,290 square feet; and WHEREAS, the Board has reviewed and considered all materials presented to it during its consideration of this matter, including the staff report • prepared for its meeting of June 7, 1983, with attachments including: 1. - Staff report for April 12, 1983, Planning Commission meeting with attachments. 2. Staff report from March 22, 1983, Planning Commission meeting with attachments. 3. Traffic Study prepared by Wilbur Smith & Associates with errata sheets and inserts. 4. Kensington Propertv Owner's Association letter of April 8, 1983. 5. Mr. Ham ond's letter on phasing of project dated January 16, 1983, and his letter of February 27, 1983, modifying the project. 6. Copy of letter and survey Mr. Hammnds sent out to Kensington residents on March 18, 1983. 7. Parking survey submitted on March 21, 1983, by the applicant. 8. April 12, 1963 letter from Kensington Police Department. 9. Fiscal study of project by Angus McDonald and Associates, Inc. received March 21, 1983. 10. Site plans and elevations as presently proposed; and, WUUTAS, a public hearing by the Board was held on June 7, 1983, and all notice required by law was given in a timely manner; and WHETS, at the hearinq the Board received oral and written testimony and -1-. WEE=, at the conclusion of said hearing, the Board voted unanimously to approve, tentatively, subject to the adoption of these findings, the rezoning and final development plan, subject to conditions; and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 83-25�7as introduced before 'the Board at its meeting of June 28 , 1983; and WHEREAS, an Initial Study of Environmental Significance was prepared for each proposed action on February 14, 1983 and a combined Notice of Preparation of a Negative Declaration dated February 1.5, 1983 was cir— culated to appropriate persons and a conditional Negative Declaration was posted for both applications on February 15, 1983; and WFIE.:RPPS, the Planning Commission has previously considered and denied an appeal of the negative declaration and a request that an environmental impact report be prepared; and the Board having reviewed and considered the negative declaration and having determined that the Board concurs in and ratifies the decision to prepare a negative declaration; and WAS, the Board hereby certifies that the negative declaration was completed in compliance with CEQA, state and local guidelines and that the Board has reviewed and considered the information contained in the initial study and in the negative declaration prior to approval of the proposed project; and WHEREAS, based upon the evidence submitted to it, and being fully informed about the proposed project, the Board determines that the project is necessary and desirable and in the best interests of the c umunity and the citizens thereof and that the planned unit district will ensure substantial compliance with the general plan and that the proposed con- ditions of approval require adequate standards necessary to satisfy the requirements of the public health, safety and general welfare; NOW, ME:I=M, IT IS By THE BOARD RESOLM, that the Board•makes the • following findings: 1. The planned unit district and final development plan (sometimes collectively referred to herein as "the plan") approved by this Resolution is in substantial compliance with the Kensington General Plan in that the General Plan designates the subject properties in the Neighborhood Business category which allows "retail and office uses and is intended to provide for neighborhood and limited community oriented commercial uses and services"; and the Commercial-office uses included in the final development plan are such as would be permitted in the Neighborhood Business category. The proposed uses in the final development plan will provide for neigh- borhood and limited community oriented c3mercial uses and services and thus the approximate 30,000 sq. ft. of new and remodeled retail-office- restaurant area with its various uses;and services as proposed will further the policies of the Neighborhood Business Category of the Kensington area General Plan. As a result, it is consistent with the existing General Plan for the subject properties. Insofar as the plan affects a single lot (411 Colusa) which arguably is within the single family residential category of the general plan and pre- viously zoned R-6, the planned unit district is also consistent with the General Pian in that the boundaries of the General Plan are intended to be general, and it appears that a portion of the lot may be included within the area designated for neighborhood business and, furthermore, because parking for commercial businesses is an allowed use within the R-6 district, a zoning district consistent with a single family residential General Plan district, under certain conditions and circumstances which the Board finds are present in this instance. In particular, the Board finds and conditions its approval as follows: A. The lot in question adjoins a zoning district allowing busi- ness uses. B. The parking areas are limited to an area within one thousand feet of the boundary of a zoning district allowing business usea. -2- C. The parking area shall be used for private passenger vehicle parking only. , • D. No commercial repair work or sale of any kind will be ' allowed. E. No signs will be permitted other than those, approved by the zoning administrator, to guide traffic, to identify the parking lot or to state the condition of use. F. The parking area is designed and developed in the manner and with the conditions deemed proper and adequate to protect residences in the vicinity. In this regard the zoning administrator shall review the plans for the parking area and shall impose conditions to comply with the following stan- dards. (1) The plans shall require proper planting and screening to protect nearby residences from noise, light and other detrimental effects; the entrance/exits shall be designed and located to minimize conflict with both existing and reasonably forseeable vehicular and pedestrian traffic; and the area used for drives and parking shall be suitably paved to prevent dust and mud. (2) Proper provisions shall be made, as deemed necessary, for adequate lighting of entrances, exits and parking areas with measures to shield adjacent residential areas from lights. (3) A detailed plot plan shall be submitted and approved by the zoning administrator depicting and delineating the requirements of section 82-16.020 of the Contra Costa County Code and all necessary elements to constitute a proper parking area. 2. The planned unit district and final development plan approved by this Resolution contain adequate standards and safeguards, as detailed herein and in the conditions of approval, necessary to satisfy the require- ments of the public health, safety and general welfare, and the approval of the planned unit district and the final development plan is consistent with, and in the interest of, the public health, safety and general welfare. 3. The Conditional Negative Declaration which was posted-constitutes a mitigated Negative Declaration based upon the initial study which found that there were significant environmental effects of the project, but that such effects could be mitigated as set forth in the traffic and parking study and by preparation of a soils/geologic report prior to construction and by requirement of any identified special construction measures. Said environmental effects have been clearly mitigated, as set forth in detail below, by revisions to the project plans made by the applicant and by enforceable conditions of approval binding the Applicant to include mitiga- tion measures in the project. With such mitigation, the project as approved will not have a significant effect on the environment. ne speci- fic mitigation measures are: .A. The current parallel parking scheme shall be maintained, and diagonal parking is not provided, on the west side of Santa Fe Avenue. The nortESEund lane of Santa Fe Avenue shall be a minimum of 15 feet wide, the southbound lane shall be 14 feet wide and a 9 foot west side curb parallel parking lane shall be provided all as required by Condition of Approval 17. B. Condition of Approval number 17, is an adequate provision for delivery access. • C. Condition of Approval number 18.B.2 provides for a 15 foot traffic lane and a 9 foot curb parking lane on Oak View Avenue. -3- D. The proposed rotary circleatColusa Circle has been elimi- nated. 7fie final configuration of Colusa Circle shall be reviewed by the Zoning AdmiLstrator prior to approval of phase III and construction of required i.-nprovements is a con- dition to construction of Phase III, as ;particularly set forth in Condition of Approval 16. E. Diagonal parking is provided on Santa Fe and Oak View Avenues thereby increasing the on-street parking supply. F. A soils/geologic report shall be prepared and submitted as required in the attached Condition of Approval number 12. Any special construction measures identified shall be included as a condition or requirement in necessary building permits or other appropriate construction approvals or per- mits. 4. Pursuant to Section 84-66.2002, a variance from the provisions contained in Article 84-66.6, and specifically in Section 84=66.602(2), requiring a minimum area of 10 acres for non;�,esidential P-1 districts is consistent with the General Plan in that the uses proposed further the policies of the Neighborhood Business Category of the Kensington Area General Plan as indicated in Finding 1 above and is granted in accordance with chapters 26-2 and 82-6 of the County Code. In particular, the ten acre limitation is modified because of special circumstances applicable to the subject properties because of their location and surroundings; and the variance in size authorized hereby does not constitute a grant of a special Privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity or in the land use district in which the subject properties are located; and the variance authorized hereby substantially meets the intent and purpose of the land use district in which the subject properties are located; and the strict applications of the zoning regulations would deprive the subject properties of rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity or within the identical land use district. In particular, the rezoning to P-1 is necessary and desireable, and in the public interest, • even though the size of the area rezoned is less than that permitted without a variance because of the relatively small size of the Cblusa Circle business area and the proximity of residential uses and the resulting need to (a) accumulate parcels for zoning and development control purposes; (b) provide control and flexibility; and (c) provide for review of individual proposed uses by the zoning Administrator, all of which would be impossible or more difficult or less effective under the pre-existing, or any, standard zoning district and all of which are in the interest of the public generally and of the residents and owners of properties in the vicinity of Colusa Cicrle and the subject properties. 5. The land uses permitted by the final development: plans are in har- mony with each other, serve to fulfill, the function of the planned unit development and are consistent with the Kensington General Plan. 6. The design objectives of section 84-66.1402 of the Contra Costa County Code have been net by the final development plan and are subject to final review and approval by the Zoning Administrator. 7. Fran the evidence submitted, the Board is satisfied, and finds that: _ A. The applicant intends to start construction within two and one-half years from the effective date of the zoning change and plan approval; B. The proposed planned unit development and final development plan are each consistent with the county general plan for the reasons contained above. (Finding 1) C. The commercial development proposed by applicant is needed at this location to provide adequate commercial facilities of . the type proposed; and traffic congestion will not likely be created by the proposed project or will be obviated by pre- sently projected improvements and by demonstrable provisions -4- in the plan for proper entrances and exits, and by intended provisions for traffic and parking; and the development will • be an attractive and efficient center which will fit har- moniously into and will have no adverse effects upon the adjacent or surrounding developrmnt; D. The development of a harmonious, integrated plan as proposed which meets the intent and purposes of the general Plan and gives control to the County on the design and occupancy to ensure compatability with the goals of the General Plan and justifies exceptions from the normal application of the county code. (§ 84-66.1406). E. Canmunity need has been demonstrated for the uses proposed by, among other things, (1) the Kensington General Plan, heretofore adopted by the Board after thorough and careful - study and after receipt of substantial public input, which Plan designates the subject properties and adjacent proper- ties as one of only two small commercial areas in the Kensington area; and (2) the testimony in favor of this pro- . posal including, but not limited to, testimony that the Colusa Circle area needs to be redeveloped and revitalized. IUW, ARE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors grants the rezoning request of Edward Y. Hannonds (Applicant) and P.E. Whitten (Owner) (2539-RZ) and approves the final development plan no. 3056-82 and adopts Ordinance No.83-27 introduced on June 28, 1983 rezoning the subject pro- perty from R-B and R-6 to P-1, subject to the conditions which are included in the body of this Resolution and those attached hereto and made a part hereof, and as is indicated on the findings map entitled: PAGE N-6 OF THE CIXTIM'S 1978 ZONING NIAP, which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. PASSID AND ADOPTr."D by the Board on on the following vote: AYES. NOES ABS=: Orig. Dept. : Planning CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL r • CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR COUNTY FILE #DP03-3047,AN AMENDMENT TO THE PHASE III AND IV AREAS OF THE COLUSA CIRCLE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, FILE #3056-82, IN THE KENSINGTON AREA (TRIANGLE BUILDING PROJECT) (Edward Hammonds—Applicant; Colusa Circle Investors and Wada Family Trust—Owners) (APN 571-331-001, 002 & 003) The following indicate: • The conditions of approval applied by the County Planning Commission in its August 14, 2007 decision to grant the request to amend the Colusa Circle Final Development Plan as applies to the Phase III and IV areas; and • Additional staff-recommended conditions of approval that have been formulated following the Commission's decision and receipt of an appeal from neighbors of the project. The recent staff-recommended conditions only are identified in marked text. Deleted language marked with STPUKETHOUGH, Added language marked with UNDERLINING 1. This approval is based upon the exhibits received by the Community Development Department and listed as follows: A. Site plans, building elevations and floor plans dated revised r me 14, 2 November 16, 2007 by Catamount Desi rgn. The approval is also based on the following report: B. Traffic and parking report by Wilbur Smith and Associates dated May 24, 2007 and Addendum dated July 3, 2007. 2. The total number of businesses within the complex shall not exceed 30. 3. This approval is subject to adoption of an Ordinance for the rezoning of the subject property under application 2539-RZ. The final number and layout of buildings shall reflect the Board's approval. (Completed and adopted by the Board in 1983) 4. The proposed buildings shall be that shown on submitted plans. Prior to the issuance of a building permit,elevations and architectural design of the building and building roofing material shall be submitted for final review and approval by the County Zoning Administrator.The roofs and exterior walls of the building shall be free of such objects as air-conditioning or utility Conditions of Approval Triangle Building Project Amendment to Phase III&IV areas of Colusa Circle Final Development Plan File#DP03-3047 equipment, television aerials, etc., or they shall be screened from view. 5. Comply with landscaping, sidewalk treatment and lighting requirements as follows: A. A landscaping program for street trees shall be submitted for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator at let 30 ys prior to issuance of building permits.A cost estimate shall be submitted with the scaping program plan.A means for the maintenance of street trees shall be established. Street trees along Colusa Avenue and Oak 4evv- enue shall be planted on 20' centers subject to Zoning Administrator review. S �41 B. All trees shall be a minimum of 15 gallon size. Trees should be of a drought-tolerant type and all of the same species. Except that at least 3 trees on Santa Fe Avenue shall be 24 inch boxed trees. C. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the developer shall offer to pay the cost of a 15 gallon tree to each of the property owners from 119 to 141 on Santa Fe Avenue. (Subject to the street tree planting requirements of El Cerrito, attached). Evidence shall be provided to the Zoning Administrator that each property owner was contacted and the disposition of the offer. D. At least 30 days prior to issuance of building permits, site improvement plans including off- street parking,landscaping,loading zone,street widening, on-street parking,a sidewalk plan and street lighting plan will be submitted to the County Zoning Administrator for review and approval following review and recommendation of the Public Works Department for the portion within the public right-of-way. The on-site work shall be completed prior to the request for final inspection of any newly constructed space. The work in the right-of-way shall be completed or bonded for prior to the request for final inspection of any newly constructed space. E. On-site lighting along any of the abutting streets that may be visible from across the street as well as parking lot lighting shall be of low intensity and shall be deflected to shine only onto the site. A lighting plan for the project including the parking lot area shall be reviewed and approved by the Zoning Administrator for conformance with this condition at least 30 days prior to the issuance of a building permit. F. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant shall provide a plan for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator to provide for pedestrian access from the rear parking lot to the existing businesses fronting on Colusa Avenue. G. Lockable bike racks of a design and location acceptable to the Zoning Administrator shall be provided. COA-2 Conditions of Approval Triangle Building Project Amendment to Phase III&IV areas of • Colusa Circle Final Development Plan File#DP03-3047 6. Phasing of the development is approved for four phases subject to review and modification of the Zoning Administrator. The phases are to be as follows: A. Phase I: Development of the one-story building between Colusa Avenue and Berkeley Park Boulevard along with 3 off-street parking spaces along with sidewalk improvements and Street tree planting on site's frontage. (Completed). B. Phase II: Development of the site between Colusa and Oak View Avenue which may include a 120-seat restaurant and retail shops. The 36-space, two-level parking structure shall be constructed at this time. (Phase II is not a part of the subject application) C. Phase III: Development of the building at the corner of Colusa and Santa Fe Avenues, the infilling'of a building along Colusa Avenue along with sidewalk improvements and street tree planting along Colusa and Santa Fe Avenues and diagonal parking on Santa Fe and Oak View Avenues. Phases III and IV are merged into a single phase and modified by DP03- 3047. D. Phase IV: Development of the rest of the site between Santa Fe and Oak View Avenues together with any other street, sidewalk or landscaping improvements required. Phases III and IV are merged into a single phase and modified by DP03-3047. 7. Prior to commencement of construction on Phase III of the project,there shall be a review of anticipated impacts of Phases III and IV by the Zoning Administrator. (DP033047 constitutes the review). 8. At least 60 days prior to issuance of building permits a sign program for the project shall be submitted for the Zoning Administrator's review and approval. 9. If deemed necessary by the Zoning Administrator and at the request of the neighborhood the developer shall apply for the establishment of a permit parking zone within 300 feet of the development. This includes the area within the unincorporated area. The developer shall pay to have the required signs erected if the zone is established. 10. Parking and driveway areas shall be paved so as to prevent ponding of water or the creation of dust. 11. The permitted uses for the commercial buildings that are within the subject property shall include retail stores, offices, and personal service uses such as barber shops, beauty shops, travel agents,dry cleaners and laundries.A maximum of three specialty food service providers shall be permitted in the center, including but not limited to take-out bakeries, coffee shops, . sandwich shops, delicatessens, bagel or burrito shops, or similar small prepared food COA-3 Conditions of Approval Triangle Building Project Amendment to Phase III&IV areas of Colusa Circle Final Development Plan File#DP03-3047 providers,ice cream or juice shops,but not to include sit-down restaurants with table service. Video game arcades,bars,pool halls,card rooms,and adult book stores shall not be allowed in this complex. A Land Use Permit shall be required for take-out food establishments, and alcohol sales pursuant to the Deemed Approved Ordinance. 12. Other than the plans,restrictions,requirements and uses specifically provided for within these conditions of approval, development shall comply to the RB Zoning District. 13. Soils-geologic reports shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator at least 60 days prior to issuance of any building permits. This report can be done phase by phase or all at once. 14. Means to reduce the odor of cooking from the food service shall be taken if feasible. 15. 16. The Zoning Administrator shall review and approve all uses within the project prior to their establishment. 17. Zoning Administrator- pr-ieF to appfwffial of Rh—ase M. Required impr-evemefl4s shall be 2 18. One on-street loading space shall be provided on Colusa Avenue. Its location shall be approved by the Zoning Administrator;the space shall be clearly signed as parking for loading and unloading vehicles. ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS IMPOSED BY DP03-3047 19. Applicant Indemnification of County - Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.9, the applicant (including the property owner or any agent thereof) shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the County and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim,action,or proceeding against the County or its agents,officers,or employees to attack, set aside,void, or annul,the County's approval concerning this Final Development Plan application,which action is brought within the time period provided for in Section 66499.37. The County will I Staff is recommending that this condition be deleted from any approval of this application as it applied only to Phase II area of the site. 2 Staff is recommending that this condition be deleted from any approval of this application as it applied to the configuration of the traffic circle,and that these improvements were completed. COA-4 Conditions of Approval Triangle Building Project Amendment to Phase III&IV areas of Colusa Circle Final Development Plan File#DP03-3047 promptly notify the developer of any such claim,action,or proceeding and cooperate fully in the defense. 20. Compliance Report-At least 45 days prior to issuance of a building permit or grading permit, the applicant shall submit a report on compliance with the conditions of approval with this permit for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. A. Except for those conditions administered by the Public Works Department, the report shall list each condition followed by a description of what the applicant has provided as evidence of compliance with that condition. The report shall also indicate whether the applicant believes that he has done all that the applicant is in a position to do to comply with the applicable condition. (A copy of the computer file containing the conditions of approval may be available; to obtain a copy, contact the project planner at 335-1205.) 21. Payment of anSLipplemental Application Processing Fees Which are Due-This application is subject to an initial application fee which was paid with the application submittal,plus time and material costs if the application review expenses exceed 100% of the initial fee. Any additional fee due must be paid within 60 days of the permit effective date or prior to use of the permit whichever occurs first. The fees include costs through permit issuance plus five working days for file preparation. Current costs may be obtained by contacting the project planner. If the applicant owes additional fees,a bill will be sent to the applicant shortly after permit issuance. 22. At least 30 days prior to the issuance of a building permit(s), the applicant shall submit a detailed landscape and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect to the Zoning Administrator for review and approval to provide landscaping for the project including for the area within the rights-of-way along Colusa Avenue, Santa Fe Avenue and Oak View Avenue. At least three 24 inch box trees for the frontage along Santa Fe Avenue shall be provided. All other trees shall be 15 gallon. A. Automatic Irrigation System-All landscaping shall be served by an automatic irrigation system. B. Security in the Event of Landscape Failure — The plans shall be accompanied by an estimate from the landscape architect of the cost of materials and labor for the proposed improvements. To address possible landscape/irrigation replacement in the event of failure of approved landscaping/irrigation within the 24 months following installation, the Applicant shall (1) enter into a landscape improvement agreement and (2) either post a cash performance bond or cash deposit with the County. C. Certified Cost Estimate of Completion of Landscape Costs- A certified (wet-stamp) estimate of the landscape installation costs(labor and materials)from either a licensed landscape architect or licensed landscape contractor shall be included with the COA-5 Conditions of Approval Triangle Building Project Amendment to Phase III&IV areas of Colusa Circle Final Development Plan File#DP03-3047 submittal of the landscape plan. D. Approval of Landscape Improvements—Prior to authorization of a final inspection of a building permit, the Zoning Administrator shall accept that the approved landscape plan has been completed in a satisfactory manner. At least 15 days prior to the Applicant seeking a final inspection of the building permit, a licensed landscape architect or licensed landscape contractor shall make an on-site inspection of the improvements and submit a written report to the Zoning Administrator: ■ certifying the completion of the landscape plans including consideration of plant species, size and location; and ■ requesting that the Zoning Administrator accept the landscape improvements. E. Maintenance — The property owner shall maintain the approved landscaping and irrigation system in good condition at all times. Construction Period Restrictions 23. Construction Period Development Activity Restrictions - Contractor and/or developer shall . comply with the following construction,noise,litter,and traffic control requirements.These notes shall be included in the General Notes of all improvement and construction plans. A. All construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 7:30 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday, and shall be prohibited on state and federal holidays on the calendar dates that these holidays are observed by the state or federal government as listed below: New Year's Day(State and Federal) Birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr. (State and Federal) Washington's Birthday/Presidents' Day(State and Federal) Lincoln's Birthday(State) Cesar Chavez Day(State) Memorial Day(State and Federal) Independence Day(State and Federal) Labor Day (State and Federal) Columbus Day(State and Federal) Veterans Day (State and Federal) Thanksgiving Day(State and Federal) Day after Thanksgiving (State) Christmas Day (State and Federal) For specific details on the actual day the state and federal holidays occur,please visit the following websites: COA-6 Conditions of Approval Triangle Building Project Amendment to Phase III&IV areas of Colusa Circle Final Development Plan • File#DP03-3047 Federal Holidays hgp://www.opm.gov/fedhol/2006.asp California Holidays http://www.edd.ca.gov/eddsthol.htm B. The project sponsor shall require their contractors and subcontractors to fit all internal combustion engines with mufflers which are in good condition and shall locate stationary noise-generating equipment such as air compressors and concrete pumpers as far away from existing residences as possible. C. At least one week prior to commencement of any site preparation made for construction activity,the applicant shall post the site and mail to the owners of property within 300 feet of the exterior boundary of the project site notice that construction work will commence. The notice shall include a list of contact persons with name, title,phone number and area of responsibility. The person responsible for maintaining the list shall be included. The list shall be kept current at all times and shall consist of persons with authority to indicate and implement corrective action in their area of responsibility. The names of individuals responsible for noise and litter control, tree protection, construction traffic and vehicles, erosion control, and the 24-hour emergency number, shall be expressly identified in the notice. A copy of the notice shall be concurrently transmitted to the Community Development Department. The notice shall be accompanied by a list of the names and addresses of the property owners noticed, and a map identifying the area noticed. D. The applicant shall make a good-faith effort to avoid interference with existing neighborhood traffic flows. E. Transporting of heavy equipment and trucks shall be limited to week days between the hours of 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM and prohibited on Federal and State holidays. F. The site shall be maintained in an orderly fashion. Following the cessation of construction activity, all construction debris shall be removed from the site. 24. Comply with the requirements of the Public Works Department. (New Public Works Department conditions follow which replace all DP3056-82 conditions.) COA-7 Conditions of Approval Triangle Building Project Amendment to Phase III&IV areas of Colusa Circle Final Development Plan File#DP03-3047 PUBLIC WORKS RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR PERMIT DP 03-3047 (as Revised November 20,2007 by the Public Works Department) Applicant shall comply with the requirements of Title 8, Title 9, and Title 10 of the County Ordinance Code. Any exceptions must be stipulated in these conditions of approval. Conditions of Approval are based on the revised Site Plan submitted to Community Development on June 14,2007. Comply with the following conditions of approval prior to issuance of building permits under this permit.The applicant shall provide evidence to the Zoning Administrator that the Public Works Department is satisfied that the following conditions have been satisfied: General Requirements 25. Improvement plans prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer,shall be submitted to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division, along with review and inspection fees, and security for all improvements required by the Ordinance Code for the conditions of approval of this Development Permit.These plans shall include any necessary traffic signage and striping plans for review by the Transportation Engineering Division. Frontage Improvements: 26. Widen Santa Fe Avenue as necessary to provide for 40°diagonal parking along the project frontage. The face of the new curb shall be 33.11 feet (excluding "sawtooth') from the existing centerline of Santa Fe Avenue to provide a 14-foot wide northbound lane. A minimum 6.5-foot sidewalk shall be installed(width measured from curb face), along with street lights and all necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage facilities. 27. Widen Oak View Avenue as necessary to provide for 48250° diagonal parking along the project frontage. The face of the new curb shall be 43.16 44.42 feet from the existing curb along the south side of Oak View Avenue to provide a 9-foot wide parallel parking lane on the south side of the street, and a 15-foot wide westbound lane. A minimum 6.5-foot sidewalk shall be installed(width measured from curb face), along with street lights and all necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage facilities. 28. Applicant shall provide all necessary signing, striping and safety related improvements, including off site transitions,as required by the County Traffic Engineer to accommodate the proposed intersection"bulb outs", diagonal parking and proposed one-way street(Oak View Avenue). This may include signage and striping within the City of El Cerrito. nub ie Alec- s and the i,,ea Tire Dist iet to assuFe adequate t .,d; e idea f 1 vi ♦♦ l�J 141111 111V 1V VAl COA-8 Conditions of Approval Triangle Building Project Amendment to Phase III&IV areas of Colusa Circle Final Development Plan File#DP03-3047 *^•^Ls and emer-geney .ehieles. Final configuration of the "bulb outs", on-street parking, landscaping and other improvements within the public rights of way shall be subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Department and the local Fire Protection District to assure adequate turning radii are provided for trucks and emergency vehicles,as well as other sight distance and related issues. 30. The owner shall convey to the County, by offer of dedication, additional right of way to encumber the sidewalks and pavement widening along Oak View Avenue and Santa Fe Avenue required above. 31. Applicant shall request the Public Works Department prepare the necessary Board Orders and process the parking restrictions and one-way street redesignation of Oak View Avenue prior to issuance of encroachment permits for the subject frontage improvements. Access to Adjoining Property: Proof of Access 32. Applicant shall furnish necessary rights of way,rights of entry,permits and/or easements for the construction of off-site, temporary or permanent, public and private road and drainage improvements.. 33. Applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Application and Permit Center for construction of driveways or other improvements within the right of way of Colusa Avenue, Santa Fe Avenue, Oak View Avenue and/or any other County owned rights of way. 34. Applicant shall obtain all necessary plan approvals and permits for off-site improvements within the city limits of the City of El Cerrito. Maintenance of Diagonal Parking Facilities: 35. The Owner shall enter into an agreement with the County to maintain signage, striping and landscaping within the County right of way related to the diagonal on-street parking provided along Oak View Avenue and Santa Fe Avenue. Said agreement shall further acknowledge that the County will not maintain these facilities. If necessary for public safety reasons, any County maintenance of these areas will be billed to the fronting property owner. 36. The Owner shall record a Statement of Obligation, in the form of a deed notification, to inform all future property owners of their legal obligation to maintain the signage, striping and landscaping within the County right of way related to the diagonal on-street parking proposed along Oak View Avenue and Santa Fe Avenue. COA-9 Conditions of Approval Triangle Building Project Amendment to Phase III&IV areas of Colusa Circle Final Development Plan File#DP03-3047 Intersection Design/Sight Distance: 37. Provide sight distance at all driveways and intersections for a design speed of 30 miles per hour.Landscaping,walls,fences,signs,or any other obstructions shall be placed to maintain adequate sight distance. Bicycle—Pedestrian Facilities 38. Applicant shall design all public and private pedestrian facilities in accordance with Title 24 (Handicap Access),the Americans with Disabilities Act,and current County standards.This includes all sidewalks,paths, driveway depressions, and pedestrian ramps. Construction of pedestrian ramps for the handicapped shall be required not only at curb returns along the project frontage, but also at the returns opposite the project frontage where no ramps currently exist or that do not conform to current County curb ramp standards. A detectable warning surface (e.g. truncated domes) shall be installed on all curb ramps. Utilities/Undergrounding: 39. All new utility distribution facilities shall be installed underground. Drainage Improvements: Collect and Convey 40. Applicant shall collect and convey all storm water entering and/or originating on this property without diversion and within an adequate storm drainage facility, to a natural watercourse having definable bed and banks,or to an existing adequate public storm drainage facility which conveys the storm waters to a natural watercourse,in accordance with Division 914 of the Ordinance Code. 41. The nearest public drainage facility is located off-site. The applicant shall be required to show that the downstream drainage system is adequate for the existing development plus this project, or upgrade it to accommodate ultimate development of the watershed. 42. Storm drainage facilities required by Division 914 shall be designed and constructed in accordance with specifications outlined in Division 914 and in compliance with design standards of the Public Works Department. 43. Storm drainage originating on the property and conveyed in a concentrated manner shall be prevented from draining across the sidewalk(s) and driveway(s). COA-10 Conditions of Approval Triangle Building Project Amendment to Phase III&IV areas of Colusa Circle Final Development Plan • File#DP03-3047 Provision 11C.3" of the NPDES Permit 44. This application is not subject to the requirements of Provision "C.3" of the County Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance,since the proposed project was deemed complete prior to February 15,2005.However,any future development applications on the subject parcel may be required to comply with Provision "C.3". National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Requirements: 45. The applicant shall be required to comply with all rules,regulations, and procedures of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems(NPDES)for municipal,construction and industrial activities as promulgated by the California State Water Resources Control Board, or any of its Regional Water Quality Control Boards (San Francisco Bay Region or Central Valley Region). A "Best Management Practices"(BMP)plan shall be developed in conjunction with a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and submitted for review and approval by the Public Works Department and Grading Section of the Building Inspection Department. BMPs to be considered shall include, but not be limited to: • Provide educational materials to new tenants. • Stencil advisory warnings on all catch basins • Trash bins shall be sealed to prevent leakage, OR, shall be located within a covered enclosure. • Slope pavements to sheet flow onto planted surfaces. • Prohibit or discourage direct connection of roof and area drains to storm drain systems or through-curb drains. • Alternative pavements. • Other alternatives, as approved by the Public Works Department. ADVISORY NOTES PLEASE NOTE ADVISORY NOTES ARE ATTACHED TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BUT ARE NOT A PART OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. ADVISORY NOTES ARE PROVIDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INFORMING THE APPLICANT OF ADDITIONAL ORDINANCE AND OTHER LEGAL REQUIREMENTS THAT MUST BE MET IN ORDER TO PROCEED WITH DEVELOPMENT. a) This project may be subject to the requirements of the Department of Fish and Game. It is Mthe applicant's responsibility to notify the Department of Fish and Game, P.O. Box 47, COA-11 Conditions of Approval Triangle Building Project Amendment to Phase III&IV areas of • Colusa Circle Final Development Plan File#DP03-3047 Yountville,California 94599,of any proposed construction within this development that may affect any fish and wildlife resources, per the Fish and Game Code. b) This project may be subject to the requirements of the Army Corps of Engineers. It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the appropriate district of the Corps of Engineers to determine if a permit is required, and if it can be obtained. C) Comply with the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance requirements for the West County, WCCTAC (West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee) Bridges/Road, and WCCTAC Transit/Pedestrian Areas of Benefit, as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. These fees must be paid prior to issuance of building permits. d) NOTICE OF 90-DAY OPPORTUNITY TO PROTEST FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, OR OTHER EXACTIONS PERTAINING TO THE APPROVAL OF THIS PERMIT. This notice is intended to advise the applicant that pursuant to Government Code Section 66000, et. seq, the applicant has the opportunity to protest fees, dedications, reservations, and/or exactions required as part of this project approval. The opportunity to protest is limited to a ninety-day(90) period after the project is approved. The 90-day period in which you may protest the amount of any fee or imposition of any dedication,reservation,or other exaction required by this approved permit,begins on the date this permit was approved. To be valid,a protest must be in writing pursuant to Government Code Section 66020 and delivered to the Community Development Department within 90 days of the approval date of this permit. e) Comply with the requirements of the County Building Inspection Department. f) Comply with the requirements of the Stege Sanitary District. g) Comply with the requirements of the Health Services Department, Environmental Health Division in regard to any food establishments. h) Comply with the requirements of the Kensington Fire Protection District. G:\Current Planning\curr-plan\Staff ReportsOP033047COA1-08-b.doc COA-12 • APPEAL LETTER r August 22, 2007 Contra Costa County Board of Appeals 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA Re: Edward Hammonds Triangle Colusa Circle Project, Kensington, CA County File # DP033047 Appeal As residents of Contra Costa and Alameda Counties and members of the Colusa Circle Improvement Association, we would like to appeal the decision of the Planning Commissioners by a vote of 3:2 �o allow Ed Hammonds to proceed with development of the Colusa Circle Triangle Project for the following reasons: Per the Administrative Procedures Act, the evidence does not support the findings of the board, the findings did not support the decision and therefore the Commission acted in excess and/or without jurisdiction. A petition signed by neighborhood residents indicates that over 450 residents would be impacted if this decision is allowed to stand. This is the first of three developments, and an overdevelopment at this point will necessarily impinge on the opportunities remaining for developers Carol Chisholm and Narsai David. The Planned Unit Development (PUD) of 1983 addresses all three properties, and doing it piecemeal, as the Hammonds proposal forced the Commission to do, will result in inconsistent results for the Colusa Circle and its property owners. The Commission failed to address the problem that the project does not conform to the General Plan. Mr. Hammonds is seeking to modify his permit, thus he is no longer grandfathered in under the 1983 permit: and must abide by the General Plan. Mr. Hammonds owned all the lots and had the area rezoned P-1, and then sold off the lot/residence that was supposed to be the parking garage for the planned development. This parcel was sold to Ms. Chisholm, whose proposal will soon be pending before the Planning Commission. While the original proposal may have been a satisfactory response to the parking needs of 24 years ago, Mr. Hammonds has sold the lot which was supposed to satisfy the 1983 plan and now proposes to violate the General Plan with a slightly reduced square footage and a parking plan that will not accommodate the burden imposed on the Circle in 2007. The County should enforce the General Plan and Mr. Hammond should be required so to abide by it. Page 1 of 4 The General Plan was adopted in 1991, and it states that the height of the building shall not exceed 35 feet (Mr. Hammonds proposed 37.5 feet on Colusa and 42 feet on Santa Fe); nor should the maximum site coverage exceed 40% (Mr. Hammonds has proposed 53%); density should not exceed 1.0 (Mr. Hammonds has proposed 1.24). Furthermore: 1 . The Commission did not fully consider the Kensington Ordinance, section 84- 74.1206, section a, standards of consideration: To ensure the development will promote the values articulated in section 84-74.204 and promote the general welfare, public health and safety of the community, the zoning administrator shall evaluate siting, size, bulk, building envelope, height, setbacks, relative scale, off-street parking spaces, window placement, artificial lighting, and location of mechanical devices, such as motors, fans and vents. These features of the development shall be evaluated on the basis of their impacts on the neighboring properties, with regard to view protection, obstructions, privacy in living areas, parking, light and solar access, maintaining residential noise levels, and compatibility with the neighborhood with regard to bulk and scale. 2. The Commission failed to consider reducing the project in height to 2 stories to reduce the impact of parking and traffic demands on the Circle. The project needs to be reduced in height from 3 stories to 2 stories because the Hammonds proposal does not conform to the building requirements of the General Plan, and would be taller than most of the existing 1- and 2-story buildings in the area and inconsistent with the general character of the neighborhood. 3. The Commission failed to consider that the 3-story project will block views of the hillside for those who live on Santa Fe since the building will be 42 feet on that side. For those in the apartment building on Colusa, it will block their view of the Bay, as well as solar access. It will also block the sunlight into the antiques store on Colusa. The houses on Santa Fe will be facing a 42-foot wall, and eves though it steps in, it will still be bulky. This is not in keeping with the Kensington Ordinance 84-74.1206 standards and the General Plan, which protects views, and solar access, as well as stressing design compatibility, including building bulk, size and height (Policy 3-191, 192, 193, 194). 4. We oppose 3-story structures in an area with predominantly 1- and 2-story structures. 5. The Commission failed to consider that the project will cause the elimination of several heritage trees (Scent Cedar, Coast Oak that are over 6 feet in Mcircumference and are protected by the Heritage Tree Ordinance). This Page 2 of 4 issue needs to be reviewed more closely-to see if they can be saved and still maintain parking. 6. The Commission failed to address whether the design of many of the homes in the area can actually accommodate typically wider late-model cars in their garages. The project will use parking spaces on the neighboring streets which have limited parking, e.g. on many of the side streets there is parking available only on one side. In addition, many of these homes have tandem, steep or narrow garages that can't always house a standard-size car, and some of which cannot accommodate a late-model car at all. 7. The Commission failed to address whether making Oakview one way and adding diagonal parking will exacerbate traffic issues and create visual and safety issues because drivers won't be able to see around the corner on Santa Fe Avenue. Also, in the Planning Report, the County indicated that if diagonal parking does not work, they will rescind it and return to parallel parking with a resulting loss of parking spaces. This will negatively impact availability of parking in the neighborhood. 8. The parking survey provided by Mr. Hammonds does not include traffic and parking from 4-7 pm, when tenants are leaving, and shoppers are coming to the Circle for services, picking up children at day care and going to the restaurants. It does not address the fact that 2 other developments are planned which will have additional parking demands. It also does not account for the fact that the new tenants will not necessarily leave the area at 5 pm and may stay to eat or drink, thus not relinquishing parking spots that would be used by the residents and evening patrons. In the parking survey, available parking spots were counted on both sides of Santa Fe (which was disallowed in the county's report), giving the impression there are more available spaces than there actually are. 9. There is an empty lot, proposed for development by Ms. Chisholm, which presently handles at least 10 parking spaces that will not be available when development is completed there. There will be an overall increase in parking demands. This project may have demands for on-street parking as well, in addition to what they will provide. Mr'. David also has a parking lot that has 10-15 spaces that will not be available when his project is developed. 10. The neighborhood has changed since 1983 and there are more cars per family and more traffic, and there is a limit to how much traffic and parking a commercial center in a residential area can handle. 11. The Commission failed to address the issue of whether traffic will be increased on Santa Fe with a potential backup of traffic onto Santa Fe, as cars try to turn on to Colusa. 491 Page 3 of 4 12. The Commission failed to address whether there will be increased traffic on surrounding one-lane streets such as Valley, as drivers avoid the Colusa Circle. 13. We do not want to change the primarily residential character of the area. Currently, the shops serve the local population, including a grocery, dry cleaner, shoe repair shop, bakery and veterinary clinic. The ambience of this neighborhood is unique and should not be lost. 14. To avoid problems that resulted from the PUD in 1983, there needs to be a shorter time limit for starting this project Two and a half years is too long, per the information on page 1 in the planning report. The situation may change in the Circle, making the project problematic if other developers proceed before Mr. Hammonds. For these reasons, we respectfully ask that the decision of the Planning Commission be vacated. Sincerely, Rodney Paul Marilyn Stollon Chair Vice Chair Colusa Circle Improvement Assoc. Colusa Circle Improvement Assoc. 1619 Oak View 12 Eldridge Court Kensington Kensington Date : Z i b Page 4 of 4 • STAFF REPORT COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 14, 2007 Agenda Items#� Community Development Contra Costa County CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesdaygust 14, 2007 TRIANGLE BUILDING PROJECT I. INTRODUCTION ED HAMMONDS (Applicant) & COLUSA CIRCLE INVESTORS AND WADA FAMILY TRUST (Owners), File # DP033047: Request approval to modify DP3056-82 and the conditions of approval, to allow modifications to the approved 1983 Colusa Circle Final Development Plan (FDP). As proposed, the building size would be reduced from the previously approved 19,100 +/- square feet (net leasable) to 13,900 +/- square feet (net leasable) and a 13-car parking lot • would be developed. The subject project consists of Phases III and IV from the 1983 Final Development Plan and is located on a 0.32 acre property zoned P-1, to be developed with approved retail business and office uses; for the commercial project located at 370 to 388 Colusa Avenue at the intersections with Oak View Avenue and Santa Fe Avenue in the Kensington area, (ZA: N-6) (CT: 3910) (Parcel No. 571-331-001, 002 & 003) II. SUMMARY OF REVIEW The site was a part of the approved Colusa Circle Final Development Plan approved in 1983, when the subject site and two other nearby properties on Colusa Circle were rezoned from R-B to P-l. That approval was exercised when Phase I was developed in 1985 so the project approval remains valid, provided development is consistent with the earlier project approval. k The current application is to modify the design of one component of the earlier approval. The application was received on July 28, 2003, but not deemed complete until January 2007 for a variety of reasons including the fact that the properties contained in the originally proposed project, which were once in a single ownership, are now in multiple ownerships, causing the need for some clarification as to what the interest and intent is of the other property owners. Additionally, there was the expectation of the submission of an updated parking • and traffic study that has been asked for by staff and by the Kensington File, #DP03-3047 August 14, 2007 iMunicipal Advisory Council (KMAC). The owner of the subject property was willing to participate in the preparation of the study, but was unable to obtain the support of other commercial property owners who would have been co- beneficiaries of the study. Consequently, after several years of delay, the subject owner has proceeded alone in regards to the study, and has provided the Wilbur Smith and Associates (WSA) parking and traffic study dated May 24, 2007 (attached). In summary, the traffic and parking study finds that currently the on-street parking is underutilized and that there would be sufficient parking for the proposed project, with the new parking that is being provided. Additionally, the applicant appeared before KMAC several times regarding building design before the current architectural design was decided upon. The property subject to the subject application has had the P-1, Planned.Unit District applied.to it in 1983, instead of the R-B zone, because the proposed uses and other regulations would result in variations from the R-B zoning district requirements. The conditions of approval of the 1983 project do not provide a clear mechanism by which the various components and improvements will be installed at any particular time. III. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a motion to: • A. Determine that the 1983 CEQ A review and Negative Declaration is g adequate for purposes of satisfying CEQA for this project. B. Adopt the related findings recommended by staff. C. Approve the proposed Modifications to the Final Development Plan with Conditions. IV. GENERAL INFORMATION A. Environs The parcel lies in a long developed urban area of the unincorporated community of Kensington. The site is located near the southwest corner of the Kensington community and directly abuts El Cerrito to the west. To the southwest and south are the city limits of Albany and Berkeley, each about one block away. The subject triangular-shaped site is surrounded by public streets. Colusa Avenue is the principal frontage of the development which is located along the east side of the subject property. To the west is Santa Fe Avenue, and to the south is Oak View Avenue. • S-2 File, #DP03-3047 August 14, 2007 Most of the immediate area around the subject property consists of an older neighborhood commercial center with several properties vacant or underutilized. Small shops, a bar, a veterinarian office, a nursery school and a four-story apartment building are nearby in the R-B zones or in the P-1 zone. A large but long-closed restaurant is across Colusa Avenue from the subject property. Single family residences in the R-6 zone extend outward in other directions from the small commercial area. The closest single family residential development is immediately across Santa Fe Avenue to the west. Those residences are within the city limits of El Cerrito. B. Site Description The subject property consists of three abutting recorded lots totaling 13,984 square feet (0.32 acres). The total triangular-shaped property has about 210 feet of frontage on Colusa Avenue, 164 feet of frontage on Oak View Avenue and 185 feet of frontage on Santa Fe Avenue. The site slopes down slightly from 110 feet above sea level along the Colusa Avenue frontage to 104 feet above sea level along the Santa Fe Avenue frontage. The existing buildings and uses were established before the present P-1 zoning was applied to the property in 1983. The site is developed with four buildings, two of which are proposed to be retained and two of which are proposed to be removed. The two, two-story commercial buildings located along the Colusa Avenue frontage are proposed to be retained. The more northerly of the two buildings to be retained addressed to 372-380 Colusa Avenue contains about 3940 square feet (gross) and is occupied by a bakery, a cleaners, a shoe shop, a skin salon and upstairs offices. The building to the south at 384-388 Colusa Avenue contains about 3390 square feet (gross) and is occupied by approximately five office tenants and a chiropractor's office on the ground-floor. A vacant, small, two-story structure at 1537 Oak View Avenue is proposed to be demolished. This building has a residential appearance but was last used as an office. (Note: this report uses both gross building area and net leasable area from time to time. Please see the discussion of Parking Sufficiency under VII Discussion later in this report for further explanation.) A closed service station/auto repair garage is located at the northern end of the property where Colusa Avenue and Santa Fe Avenue intersect, with the address of 370 Colusa Avenue. This building is also proposed to be removed. There are a few trees on the subject property that are proposed to be removed in the currently proposed project, and were also S-3 File, #DP03-3047 August 14, 2007 approved for removal in the earlier project. While some of the trees are large, the trees are mostly conifers (cedars) and not native to the area. The trees' location would preclude development of the parking lot if the trees were retained. C. General Plan Designation: Commercial The 1983 approval occurred when the General Plan did not contain any specific dimensional restrictions (height, coverage etc). As stated above, the prior project approval remains in effect without a time limit. In 1991 the General Plan was amended to place lot coverage, floor area ratio and height limits into the General Plan. The restrictions introduced in 1991 are as follows: Maximum site coverage: 40% Maximum building height: 35 ft. Maximum floor area ratio: 1.0 Average employees per gross acre: 160 D. Zoning The subject property is zoned P-1, Planned Unit District; and is subject to the conditions of approval of 2539-RZ and DP 3056-82 (attached). Final Development Plan#3056-82 This plan and accompanying Mitigated Negative Declaration were approved by the County Planning Commission and subsequently by the Board of Supervisors on appeal, on June 28, 1983. Ed Hammonds was the applicant for the 1983 project as well as for the subject application. The record also shows that the 1983 approval was unsuccessfully litigated by certain objecting neighbors after the County's approval, alleging CEQA violations. The County's approval prevailed at the trial court and on appeal. The approved FDP approved three adjacent areas for individual phased development. A 1983 parking study by Wilbur Smith and Associates found the proposed parking to be adequate. A component of the 1983 plan (Phase I) at 400-404 Colusa Avenue was constructed in 1985 and occupied, located at the southerly side of the intersection of Colusa Avenue and Oak View Avenue. That site now contains an animal hospital and a hair salon. Phase 11 was for a three-story, 34-stall parking garage, 120-seat restaurant and retail at 401-411 Colusa Avenue at the northerly side of the intersection of Colusa Avenue and Oak View Avenue on the far side of Colusa Circle from the current project. The • Phase Il site has not been developed under the 1983 approval. S-4 f File, #DP03-3047 August 14, 2007 • The Triangle Site: The buildings approved in 1983 for the triangle property now under consideration were identified as Phases III and IV, and provided for a total of 19,145 +/- square foot (net leasable), consisting of two and three story buildings with a building coverage, of 11,100+/- square feet (79% lot coverage). There would have been 13,375 square feet of new construction, plus 5770 square feet of existing buildings to be retained. No off-street parking was required to be provided within this block other than the provision of diagonal parking on Santa Fe Avenue and Oak View Avenue. The site under this present consideration in the 1983 approval provided for a conditional list of permitted uses (attached). The approved parking in the 1983 approval was to be partially located in a parking garage to be shared with other parts of the approved development plan, located to the east across Colusa Circle in Phase II, combined with the establishment of additional on-street parking created by conversion of the existing parallel parking to diagonal parking on Oak View Avenue and on Santa Fe Avenue. The FDP provides for the conversion of Oak View Avenue from two-way to one way, west-bound. The current project proposes to retain this component of the FDP. The approved development of the subject property allows a limited mix of retail uses, offices and limited specialty food service. The approved commercial buildings have no setback from the right-of-way of a street, while the R-B zone requires a 10 foot setback. Additionally, the currently approved project allowed major reductions in the amount of off-street parking or loading zones provided, relative to that required by the Zoning Ordinance. The record indicates the parking reduction was approved because the 1983 Wilbur Smith and Associates parking study identified that the off-street parking would be minimally adequate with the new diagonal parking proposed considering the differing peaks times of business activity. The Public Works Department found the diagonal parking acceptable as approved. E. CEQA Status Rezoning 2539-RZ and Development Plan 3056-82 were subject to a Mitigated Negative Declaration in the prior review of a larger development for the subject property in the 1982 and 1983 period. Because Phase I at 400-404 Colusa Avenue, to the south has been built, the earlier permit is considered to have been exercised and therefore project approval would not expire. Since the current project consists of exercising the previously approved but unexpired approval, but for a reduced-scale project with more parking, staff has determined that the environmental impacts from the reduced-scale build-out are less than that S-5 File, #DP03-3047 August 14, 2007 of the earlier approval for larger buildings with less parking. Therefore, no further environmental studies are mandatory to be in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act; i.e. the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration remains applicable for the subject property (CEQA Guidelines Section 15162). Nevertheless, the new parking and traffic study has been provided which confirms the conclusions of the earlier approval and previous study regarding the less than significant parking and traffic impacts of the project. F. Nearby Active Projects 1. The Community Development Department has received an application from Circle Investors for a development permit to construct three residential units within a small commercial building across Colusa Circle from the subject property at 401 Colusa Avenue. This is the site known as Phase H in the 1983 FDP approval. As proposed, a General Plan amendment is required as well as modification to a Final Development Plan, and a minor subdivision (MS060011). That application has not been deemed complete as of the time of report preparation and is currently not scheduled for public hearing. 0 2. A Development Plan has recently been received (DP073041) for the re-use of the long-closed restaurant building at 385 Colusa Avenue across the street to the east, to develop conforming R-B uses other than restaurant uses. This site was not a part of the 1983 FDP approval. The application is also not complete. G. Regulatory Programs 1. Active Fault Zones: The subject properties are not within an active fault zone. The Hayward Fault is located about 0.6 miles to the east, running in a north-south direction. 2. Flood Hazard Area: The site is in Flood Zone C (not within the 100 year or 500 year flood zone). 3. 60dBA Projected Noise Impacted Area: The Noise Element of the General Plan does not indicate that any portion of the site will be subject to significant noise levels (greater than 60 dB level) associated with projected traffic levels along any nearby streets. H. Active Zoning Compliance Investigation of Commercial Properties at 385 Colusa Avenue S-6 File, #DP03-3047 August 14, 2007 An investigation is underway regarding the compliance of the off-street parking in conjunction with the site identified as F-2 above under Nearby Active Projects. V. Proposed Modified Development Plan In a P-1 zoned area, alldevelopment is subject to approval of a Final Development Plan. Under a development plan, the specific plan that is approved becomes the approved project, subject to all conditions of approval. The actual layout and design do not have to conform to the regulations of a particular Zoning Ordinance district (unless by reference it is so specified in the plan). The current proposal is to substitute for the larger project approved in 1983, approval of the construction of an 8360 square foot (gross) three- story building with retail uses on the first floor and two floors of offices above where the closed service station is now located. A 13-space, off- street parking lot is proposed on the southerly portion of the site, to be accessed from Oak View Avenue, where the existing two-story building (1537 Oak View Avenue) is proposed to be removed. A small, vacant triangular area on Colusa Avenue located between the two existing buildings, containing about 600 square feet is proposed to be filled in • with a two-story plus partial mezzanine level addition (Building B) containing 1629 square feet (gross). In summary, approximately 2944 square feet (gross) of buildings are proposed to be demolished, and 9989+/- square feet (gross) of new buildings are to be built, resulting in a net increase of 7045+/- square feet of building area, along with a 13-car parking lot. The change in parking from parallel to diagonal along the two street frontages would increase the number of spaces by approximately 12. (The parking efficiency of the existing parallel parking is slightly variable). As proposed, there would be 25 additional parking spaces to serve the 7045 square feet of new buildings, or one space per 282+/- square feet of new construction. There is currently no off-street parking being provided on the site to serve the existing buildings containing 10,150 square feet (gross). Presumably, if the current project or the original 1983 approved project do not go forth, the existing buildings on site could be rehabilitated and used to a greater degree than they now are. As proposed there will be two buildings retained on the site both located on Colusa Avenue containing a total of 7391 square feet (gross). If subject project is approved there would be a total of 17,380 square feet (gross) of existing and new buildings with 25 new parking spaces, in addition to the existing on-street parking spaces. • S-7 File, #DP03-3047 August 14, 2007 • Building A: The currently proposed project would allow the construction of Building A which would have 3018 square feet (gross) of retail space on the first floor and 5342 square feet (gross) of office above on the second and third floors. An elevator and stairway would serve the upper floors. The entry doors for the ground floor retail would be on Colusa Avenue. A door providing access to a rear deck as well as the parking lot would be on the rear or west side of the building. The upper floors would have an elevator lobby and bathrooms on each level. Building B: The proposed Building B is a small building proposed to fill in the triangular space between the two existing buildings on Colusa Avenue. The proposed exterior fagade is similar to the two adjacent buildings. The building would contain 313 square feet on the first floor, 409 square feet on the mezzanine level and 707 square feet on the second floor. The building is also triangular shaped being about 30 feet wide at the street but narrowing to only about 4 feet in width at the rear. Site Amenities: Two usable outdoor amenity areas are proposed at the rear, one a raised deck of about 270 square feet would be located behind Building A. The other usable outdoor space would be a patio area with benches and landscaping containing about 560 square feet located near • the Oak View Avenue frontage, between the parking lot and the corner building to be retained at 384-388 Colusa Avenue. These two outdoor spaces could provide customer and employee amenities for the retail spaces along Colusa Avenue. VI. AGENCY COMMENTS 1. County Public Works- Comments received June 25th 2007 regarding the updated traffic study are as follows: Due to neighborhood concerns over the perceived lack of parking that could result from this project, an updated parking/traffic study was prepared by Wilbur Smith & Associates. We have reviewed the study dated May 22, 2007 and forwarded it to the County Traffic Engineer as well. This prior study was undertaken as part of the original project approval process in 1983 which indicated the cumulative project area was underparked. This resulted in several mitigation measures including pavement widening to allow on-street diagonal parking, and modifications to traffic circulation patterns. Because the scope of this project is less intense than the originally approved permit, we felt it appropriate to re-examine the situation to determine if the prior mitigation • measures and improvements warrant some modification. S-8 File, #DP03-3047 August 14, 1007 i As a matter of practice, the Public Works Department generally does not endorse diagonal parking along public streets. Due to the sight distance restrictions for vehicles backing out, diagonal parking is more of a traffic hazard than parallel parking. If the project is developed as proposed and the diagonal parking is later determined to be an excessive traffic hazard, the County Traffic Engineer could recommend to the Board of Supervisors that the diagonal striping be removed and the parking be reconfigured as parallel parking, thus eliminating seven of the parking spaces along Santa Fe Avenue and/or five spaces along Oak View Avenue. With this in mind, it does not seem appropriate to credit the on- street parking towards the parking requirements for the project. Additional comments relative to the Smith study itself are as follows: 1. The parking spaces on the west side of Santa Fe Avenue should not be included in the calculation of parking occupancy. The west side of the street is within the boundaries of the City of El Cerrito, and as such, they control the parking and any possible future restrictions. If the City can assure that they will not restrict parking to residences only, then it would be acceptable to include the supply in the occupancy analysis. Otherwise, do not include these spaces. • 2. What is the basis for the 28% reduction factor proposed on Page 9 of the study? The reductions factors are 3%, 5%, and 20%, for transit use, walking, and mixed-use character, respectively. 3. County Code parking requirements suggest that 37 spaces be provided for this development. Reducing this by the 28% reduction factor results in 27 spaces being required, but the study deems 25 spaces as adequate. What is the basis for the difference between the two? What are the resultant ratios if the spaces on the west side of Santa Fe were not available (per Bullet #1) and the County had to restore the east side of Santa Fe to parallel parking? 4. On Page 10, feasibility of providing 40-degree angled parking on Santa Fe Avenue cites industry standards that are not recognized by the County. The analysis should use County Code 82-16.012, not the Urban Land Institutes publication, "The Dimensions of Parking," to determine the required parkingdimensions that ultimately impact whether encroachment into the traveled way will occur or not. The same applies for the analysis of the 60-degree angled parking proposed on Oak View Avenue. S-9 File, #DP03-3047 August 14, 2007 • Resolution of the cumulative impacts of these comments would obviously show the project to still be underparked, although probably not to the extent of the original project. However, we concur that the prior mitigation measures relative to the parking, curb line location and right of way dedication along Santa Fe Avenue should be modified due to the shallower proposed parking angle. The resultant recommended mitigation measure and condition of approval should be modified to read as follows: • Widen Santa Fe Avenue as necessary to provide for 40° diagonal parking along the project frontage. The face of the new curb shall be 33.11 feet from the existing centerline of Santa Fe Avenue to provide a 14-foot wide northbound lane. A minimum 6.5-foot sidewalk shall be installed (width measured from curb face), along with street lights and all necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage facilities. Prior comments from February 21, 2007 Public Works Response: Drainage All drainage from the project must be collected and conveyed in an adequate storm drain system to a natural watercourse or adequate man-made facilities. • Applicant shall verify that the existing downstream drainage system(s) that receives storm water runoff from this project is adequate to convey the required- design equireddesign storm (based on the size of the contributing watershed) and, if necessary, construct improvements to guarantee adequacy. The applicant must verify access rights to construct any of-site drainage facilities and obtain all necessary permits from regulatory agencies. Some of these off-site drainage improvements may be within the City of El Cerrito as well. The City should be contacted regarding any necessary permits. Compliance with the Regional Water Quality Control Board's requirements to minimize storm water pollutants may require on-site filtration and treatment prior to allowing discharge of storm water runoff. Inclusion of such facilities, along with other "Best Management Practices" to reduce storm water pollutants must be incorporated into construction plans for this project. 2. East Bay Municipal Utility District- The August 11, 2003 response indicates that the District had no comments on the project. 3. Kensington Fire Protection District — A response from the Michael Bond of the Kensington/El Cerrito Fire Department dated April 10, 2007, provides the applicable regulations and processes that the proposed project will be subject to. • S-10 File, #DP03-3047 August 14, 2007 • 4. Stege Sanitary District - The District's response dated March 14, 2007, indicates the district's willingness to serve the project subject to district fees and conditions. 5. Kensington Municipal Advisory Council - A previous response was received dated March 7, 2005, in regards to the lack of interest by other area property owners in contributing to a traffic and parking study. A new letter following the May 29, 2007 KMAC meeting comments on the current version and recommends conditional approval of the project (attached). KMAC recommended 5 conditions of approval: 1. Bicycle parking to be provided on site. 2. Street trees to be provided higher and denser on the Santa Fe Avenue side of the development 3. The recommendations of the Wilbur Smith & Assoc. study regarding lane widths be adopted which are 32 feet of combined NB travel lane and 40 degree parking on Santa Fe Avenue, and 14' — 8" WB travel lane and 9' x 19' 60 degree parking on Oak View Avenue. 4. Off-street parking to be available for neighbor's use during evenings and weekends. 5. The third story of"Bldg. A" to be centered equally between Colusa Avenue and Santa Fe Avenue rather than offset as shown on drawings. • (The applicant has agreed to these conditions.) 6. County Health Services Department: -No comment. 7. City of El Cerrito: This matter was referred to the City of El Cerrito when the application was first received in 2003 and again in June of 2007 after the application was deemed complete. No response was received from El Cerrito on either occasion. A follow-up phone call was made to El Cerrito on July 30, 2007. The planner contacted, Noel Ibalio stated that El Cerrito had no objections to the project. Contacts were made with the Public Works Department of the City of El Cerrito to insure the acceptability of tree planting within the right-of-way of Santa Fe Avenue. 8. City of Albany This matter was referred to the City of Albany when the application was first received in 2003 and again in June of 2007 after the application was deemed complete. No response was received from Albany on either occasion. A follow-up phone call was made to Albany on July 30, 2007. The planner contacted, Jeff Bond, stated that Albany had no objections to the proj ect. 9. City of Berkeley: This matter was referred to the City of Berkeley when the application was first received in 2003 and again in June of 2007 after the application was deemed complete. No response was received from Berkeley on S-11 File, #DP03-3047 August 14, 2007 • either occasion. A follow-up phone call was made to Berkeley on July 30, 2007. A response might be forthcoming before the Planning Commission meeting. VII. DISCUSSION 1. Aesthetic Considerations and Architectural Compatibility- The applicant has indicated that he has been before KMAC six times over several years and has modified the project to meet the concerns of KMAC, which now recommends approval of the project. Nevertheless, the attached letters from several area neighbors and responses to those letters from the applicant, as well as the KMAC minutes, reflect increasing neighborhood concern about the suitability of the project. Much of the concern deals,with the height and mass of Building A, as well as perceived parking shortages and tree loss. The applicant has provided detailed design level plans of the proposed buildings. The building height for Building A is 37.5 feet on the Colusa Avenue side. Because of the East-to-West downslope of the lot, Building A will be 42 feet high on the rear of parking lot side (west). The building's architecture would be compatible with the existing style of the commercial buildings on Colusa Way. The building is well-articulated with attractive, older-style, clerestory windows, and fixed and movable double-hung windows on the upper floors. Variations in depth of the front surface occur in the second story in the area of the windows. Awnings are proposed on both the Colusa Avenue and Santa • Fe Avenue sides of the triangular-shaped building. The south side of the new building would butt up against the existing building containing the bakery. The third story has been set back from both the east and west sides to provide more variation for the building's fagade and to make the building height less apparent on both sides. A metal railing would give the setback third story the appearance of a balcony at that level. An actual small balcony will be provided to overlook the parking lot. The building is generally a Mediterranean style with arched entries and a tile roof to provide similarities to buildings from the 1920s or 1930s. Building Scale and Mass Mitigations: While the proposed three-story corner building is larger than the single family residences to the west, the subject site is planned for commercial uses which are expected to have higher building densities than the adjacent single family residential areas, and the site is located on a main thoroughfare of the area. However, a common public reaction once the three-story Building A is built, but the landscaping has not had a chance to mature, is that the new commercial building looks too big for the fairly small lot. Therefore, the ultimate landscaping plan should be of high quality and include some larger boxed trees along the Santa Fe Avenue frontage. As recommended by KMAC, trees and a relatively dense vegetative screen along the Santa Fe Avenue frontage are to be provided to • reduce the visual impacts on the nearby single family residential properties. S-12 File, #DP03-3047 August 14, 2007 Fortunately, there is an unusual mitigating feature on the west side of Santa Fe Avenue. As compared to the 50 or 60 foot rights-of-way width of other streets in the area, there is an unusually wide 80 foot right-of-way on Santa Fe Avenue. The planting strip in front of the houses between the sidewalk and the street is also quite wide being about 12-feet in width which allows for additional separation between those houses and the street and the subject project. While most of the trees in the planter strip are small or in some cases, the strip has no trees, a recommended condition of approval would be to require the applicant to offer a tree to each of the owners of the single family residences on the west side of Santa Fe Avenue, subject to an Encroachment Permit and street tree planting requirements of the Public Works Department of the City of El Cerrito. Building Height Considerations: Some area residents have objected to the height of the proposed three-story Building A to the Kensington Municipal Advisory Council. While staff recognizes the concern, in the subject case there are circumstances that weigh in favor of the proposed building size and height. First, the original 1983 approval provided for a larger and wider, two and three-story building along the 185 foot Santa Fe Avenue frontage, rather than the 64 feet width of the currently proposed Building A. That larger building could still be built under the unexpired 1983 approval. Furthermore, there is an existing four-story building on the east side of Colusa Avenue that abuts single family residences to the side and rear, without the separation of a street and the unusually wide planter strip mentioned above. Achieving three stories in less than 37.5 feet of height is difficult for commercial buildings because of the increased ceiling height typically required by retail ground-floor tenants. Because of the need for larger spans, the resulting trusses and mechanical equipment space cause commercial buildings to have a greater floor-to-floor story height than typical residential buildings. Additionally the building is proposed to have a pitched roof rather than a flat roof. Pitched roofs are generally considered to be more attractive and architecturally interesting than are flat roofs, but a flat roof could allow the building to be about 3 feet shorter. The three-story portion of the building in the 1983 approval scales 38+/- feet on the Santa Fe Avenue side, but is largely flat roofed (except for a raised skylight). Neither staff nor KMAC is recommending shortening Building A by requiring a flat roof. Compliance with Subsequent General Plan Revisions • The General Plan at the time of project approval did not contain specific site maximum height, coverage or floor area ratios. These policy changes occurred in the 1991 General Plan revision. The following chart compares the 1983 project approval vs. the current proposal relative to the current General Plan Commercial Designation maximums: S-13 File, #DP03-3047 August 14, 2007 1991 General Plan 1983 Project Current Project Maximum site coverage: 40% 79% 53 % Maximum building height: 35 ft. 38' 37.5' (42' rear) Maximum floor area ratio: 1.0 1.63 1.24 Average employees per gross acre: 160 na na Both the project approved in 1983 and the modifications currently proposed exceed the present lot coverage, floor area ratio and, height limitations of the existing General Plan. However, as stated above, the 1983 approval remains unexpired and the current proposal would bring the project closer to the present General Plan standard. Regarding the increased height, the tallest portion of the 1983 approved building was on Santa Fe Avenue at Oak View Avenue. In the current reduced-scale design, the tallest portion is near the Santa Fe/ Colusa intersection. The maximum height would occur on the Santa Fe Avenue side and that is the result of the slope under the building area. In a conventional (non-Planned Unit District) development project, height exceptions are sometimes granted when there are special circumstances demonstrated. 2. Parking Sufficiency — The off-street parking requirements contained in the Contra Costa County Zoning Ordinance are based on well-established average parking generation needs. However, most of the areas subject to Contra Costa County regulations are lower-density, suburban areas more typical of the areas undergoing development when the County Zoning Ordinance was developed. These were areas where public transit and pedestrian facilities were rare and densities were generally lower, resulting in higher rates of auto use and greater parking demands. The urban development pattern of Kensington is much more like that of nearby Berkeley, Albany, and El Cerrito than the typical Contra Costa County suburban development. Densities are higher, land uses more varied and pedestrian "friendliness" is much greater. Consequently, these nearby communities have lower parking requirements than the County, and in the case of Berkeley, actively restrict parking availability by setting a maximum of one space per 250 square feet. El Cerrito requires one parking space per 300 square feet for retail and one space per 500 square feet for offices, as compared to the one space per 200 square feet required by the County. The subject property abuts El Cerrito. If the subject project were proposed in El Cerrito, only 25 parking spaces would be required to meet the parking regulations for the new construction(12 from retail and 13 from office). 25 new spaces are being provided between the proposed off-street parking and the on-street spaces created by going from parallel to diagonal. The new construction being proposed would also be conforming in Berkeley and Albany. 5-14 File, #DP03-3047 August 14, 2007 • Off-street Parking, Requirements b Jurisdiction, arking s ace/bld . sq. ft Contra Costa El Cerrito Albany Berkeley County Office 1/200 1/500 1/400 11500 Retail 1/250 1/300 1/400 11500 Parking Required for the Subject Project Contra Costa El Cerrito Albany Berkeley County New only, 6458 46 25 25 20 sq. ft. office, 3531 retail Total project, 79 45 43 35 new plus existing, 10,020 sq. ft. office, 7360 retail Number of new spaces provided: 25 Typical of the older development in these areas, the subject property was developed with over 10,000 square feet of commercial buildings but without any public off-street parking. If there was no relief granted to the present parking requirements, it is unlikely that any redevelopment of previously developed sites could occur because it would require razing most existing buildings and creating the typical suburban shopping center where two-thirds of the land area is devoted to parking lots. As evidenced by the generally favorable recommendations from KMAC and by the earlier project approval, staff believes that most Kensington residents would not.prefer that alternative in spite of recent objections raised by area residents. Parking Consideration in 1983 Project Approval: The reality of the local parking situation was recognized by Contra Costa County in the 1983 approval of the subject project. In that case, some of the existing buildings were to be retained, new buildings constructed and a lesser number of new spaces would be created in the area of the subject property, by converting parallel spaces to diagonal spaces on-street. In the current modification request, there would be a significant net increase of on-street and off-street parking of some 25 spaces. The relative degree of off-street parking S-15 File, #DP03-3047 August 14, 2007 deficiency compared to the Zoning Ordinance parking requirements would be substantially less than that granted in the 1983 approval. As part of the 1983 approval, a 12,900 square foot (gross) building was approved across Colusa Circle at 401 Colusa Avenue about 150 feet to the east, with 34 parking spaces in a two-story garage (Phase II). That building included retail and office uses and a 120-seat restaurant. While joint or shared parking between the phases of the 1983 project would have been allowed and encouraged, the number of parking spaces provided for that other building would not have generated a surplus of spaces to be supplied to the subject property per the County parking requirements. Consequently, the absence of Phase II should not worsen the parking situation for the current project. Net Leasable: The 1983 approval and reports used net leasable area in its project description and project approval documents. The gross square footages are not precisely known. Consequently, in order to provide an "apples to apples" comparison, between the earlier project approval and the current proposal, staff has also converted the gross building areas of the current proposal to net leasable as well. Gross building area means all the structure contained with the exterior building walls of a building. The 1983 approval allowed 19,143 square feet of net leasable space (new and existing). In commercial real estate terminology,net leasable area is defined as follows: The floors ace in a building that is actually under lease. Net P g Y leasable area is all the leasable area of a building exclusive of non- leasable space such as hallways, building foyers, areas devoted to heating, air conditioning, elevators, and other utility areas. The net leasable area produces the lease income economically supporting the building. For example, a building having 5,000 sq. ft. of area may have a net leasable area of 4,250 sq. ft. Source: Glossary, realestate agent.com To avoid confusion staff has specified in this report which type of square footage is being discussed. The current proposal, counting new and existing buildings, is for 17,380 square feet of gross building area. Generally there is about a 20% differential between net leasable area and gross areas because of subtracting out such spaces as common corridors, bathrooms, mechanical equipment, stairways and elevators from the gross area to obtain the net area. Consequently, if the 20% factor were used in the subject project, the 17,380 square feet of gross building area in the current proposal would translate to approximately 13,900 square feet of net leasable, meaning that the subject project is approximately 27% smaller than what was approved in the 1983 approval, but would have more parking. S-16 File, #DP03-3047 August 14, 2007 Wilbur Smith and Associates Parking and Traffic Study. As previously mentioned, the applicant has provided a parking and traffic study by Wilbur Smith and Associates (attached). That report dated May 24, 2007, with a July 3, 2007 addendum, studies the current utilization of parking in the area and analyzes the probable impact of the new construction using industry average rates of parking generation and concludes that, in spite of the current absence of off-street parking, the existing on-street parking is generally underutilized in that there are approximately 107 on-street parking spaces within the greater on-street parking study area which operate at about 48 percent of capacity during the morning hours (7:00 AM to 11:00 AM) and about 51 percent during the midday hours (12:00 PM to 4:00 PM). The study finds that on-street parking is generally available in both the AM and PM periods, even though*the subject property provides no off-street parking at present. With the proposed new uses and newly created parking spaces, the study finds that there would be sufficient on-street and off-street parking after project construction. Parking generation studies anticipate that there may be occasional peaks, or uses that are exceptionally successful, as well as vacancies and less successful businesses, but the resulting numbers are based on the most probable outcomes,not worst-case scenarios. The Public Works Department's response to the Wilbur Smith report raises • discussion issues with both methodology and with potential under-parking relative to the Contra Costa County Zoning Ordinance. In particular it points out that Contra Costa County Public Works Department does not endorse diagonal parking on public streets. As a result the following statement is contained in the comments: If the project is developed as proposed and the diagonal parking is later determined to be an excessive traffic hazard, the County Traffic Engineer could recommend to the Board of Supervisors that the diagonal striping be removed and the parking be reconfigured as parallel parking, thus eliminating seven of the parking spaces along Santa Fe Avenue and/or five spaces along Oak View Avenue. With this in mind, it does not seem appropriate to credit the on-street parking towards the parking requirements for the project. Therefore, in acting on the subject project, the option of possibly someday losing the diagonal parking must be considered if it is later determined that the diagonal parking causes an excessive traffic hazard. That would cause the loss of 12 parking spaces, or 7 spaces if only the Santa Fe spaces were removed. Community Development Department staff has discussed the Public Works Department comments with Public Works staff and concluded that it is the higher speed of the traffic on Santa Fe Avenue rather than on Oak View that has caused that department's reservations. It was also agreed that the_Public Works use of the term "under-parked" was meant in terms of S-17 File, #DP03-3047 August 14, 2007 • the parking requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, not the current off and on- street parking situation in the area of the subject project. It was also agreed that the present project has a much lesser degree of parking deficiency relative to the Zoning Ordinance requirements than the previously approved proj ect. Community Development Department staff also notes that diagonal parking was approved in the 1983 approval which could also be built. The County would likewise own and control the public road rights-of-way so that the possibility of the later removal of diagonal parking is inherent in the earlier approval as well. So that if a larger project with a greater off-street parking deficiency could be built, any adverse impact of the subject reduced scale project should be less. Given the long-standing existence of diagonal parking in the general area on Solano Avenue, The Arlington, and in El Cerrito, the likelihood of the later loss of parking spaces for the subject property should be similar to that in other nearby communities with diagonal parking. If seven spaces were lost along Santa Fe Avenue, then there would be 18 new spaces provided for the 7045 square feet of new (net) building square footage or one space per 391 square feet of new building. This parking-to-building ratio is comparable to the off-street parking requirements of the three adjoining cities, but well below that of Contra Costa County. If the County regulations • were determined to be appropriate here, about 1750 square feet of building area (7 x 250 square feet) should be removed to compensate for the theoretical loss of parking. 3. Loading Zone — The Zoning Ordinance normally requires that in addition to the off-street parking requirements, that commercial buildings greater than 10,000 square feet in area provide a loading zone with dimensions of 10 feet by 35 feet in size. As a P-1 development, the loading zone is not necessarily required and an off-street loading zone was not required for this building in the 1983 approval. An on-street loading zone on Colusa Avenue was required instead. To provide an off-street loading zone within the parking lot would require the loss of probably three and maybe four parking spaces. The one on-street loading zone along the Colusa Avenue frontage may be implemented by signs and/or curb painting as required by the Public Works Department. 4. Pedestrian Facilities — It is a General Plan policy (Policy 5-25) to encourage safe and convenient pedestrian travel ways and provide sidewalks where conditions allow. Sidewalks are being provided along all street frontages. It is not clear how the internal pedestrian traffic flow would work. The business frontages are along Colusa Avenue and the new parking is at the rear. The currently open area between 380 and 384 Colusa Avenue is proposed to be filled in with a new building. Rear public entries may be possible although it is not clear whether the older buildings to remain would have customer S-18 File, #DP03-3047 August 14, 2007 entries at the rear. Walking around the building is not difficult but the increased distance involved could cause more people to prefer to park on Colusa Avenue to shorten their walking distance. A recommended condition of approval would require the developer to provide a pedestrian walkway plan to the Zoning Administrator prior to the issuance of a building permit. 5. Review of Approved Uses- The 1983 approval allowed "commercial" uses on the ground floor and offices above. A condition of approval (#11)reads: #11. Uses such as video game arcades, bars, pool halls, card rooms and fast-food take-out establishments shall not be allowed in this complex with the exception of one take-out ice cream store and one take-out bakery. This list of uses understandably reflects the fears of nuisance uses that would be disruptive to the residential areas in the vicinity. However, there have been changes in the nature and scale of small neighborhood retail shopping areas since 1983. In particular, such centers now have even greater difficulty competing with larger shopping centers for retail sales uses. However, personal service uses such as beauty shops, dry cleaners and barber shops are somewhat more viable.. Another active category of uses that has a good chance of being competiive in such centers is what is referred to as specialty . food uses. Such uses typically include coffee shops, ice cream sales, juice bars, and take-out bakery/sandwich/wraps/bagels/burritos/etc. shops. There is currently a popular neighborhood bakery in the center, but other than one ice cream shop, no other food service can currently be established under Condition 11. This concern was not raised by the applicant but by staff. Recognizing that the current limit on uses would cause problems in the future for implementation and potential violations, staff suggests that the range of uses be slightly modified to allow a broader range of specialty food uses and not limiting it to just an ice cream shop, but also adding at least one more of such specialty food uses. Staff is not proposing allowing sit-down restaurants with table service unless additional off-street parking could be provided. 6. Proiect Overview — The proposed project is smaller in scale and has more parking than the larger project already approved for the site. While the surrounding residential area is very desirable and well maintained, the overall competitiveness of the Colusa Circle commercial area is lacking as evidenced by the closed and underutilized commercial spaces on the subject property and in the surrounding R-B area, where business uses remain closed for years and a vacant lot remains undeveloped. If the subject project does not go forward, it seems probable that some of the declining properties in the area may worsen to the detriment of the neighborhood. The proposed development is well-suited to provide small,neighborhood-serving business uses at a desirable infill location. S-19 File, #DP03-3047 August 14, 2007 VIII. Review for Addressing Objectives of the Planned Unit District The P-1 ordinance is intended to allow flexibility in the design of a project so that, on balance, a proposed project would provide a better fit to the site and its environs than if conventional zoning were to be applied, and enforced. On balance, the project compares favorably. Still, staff recommends that some minor changes are in order if the objectives of the P-1 district are to be met. a. Proposed Modifications - The following identifies changes that should be worked into the project as part of an approval in order to find consistency with the General Plan and with the P-1 requirement that the project will constitute a commercial environment of sustained desirability and stability: 1) Additional Landscaping and Requirement of Larger Trees. To more quickly provide a landscaped screen along the Colusa Avenue and Santa Fe Avenue frontages, provide at least three 24 inch boxed trees per street frontage in addition to 15 gallon trees. 2) Increased Screening Along Santa Fe Avenue. To provide the opportunity for more visual screening for the single family residences across Santa Fe Avenue, the developer shall offer one 15 gallon tree to each of the property owners from 119 to 141 on Santa Fe Avenue, subject to the street tree planting requirements of El Cerrito. 3) Prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant shall provide a plan for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator to provide for pedestrian access from the rear parking lot to the existing businesses fronting on Colusa Avenue. 4) The permitted uses for the commercial buildings that are within the subject property shall include retail stores, offices, and personal service uses such as barber shops, beauty shops, travel agents, dry cleaners and laundries. A maximum of three specialty food service providers shall be permitted in the center, including but not limited to take-out bakeries, coffee shops, sandwich shops, delicatessens, bagel or burrito shops, or similar small prepared food providers, ice cream or juice shops, but not to include sit- down restaurants with table service. is 5-20 File, #DP03-3047 August 14, 2007 IX. REQUIRED FINDINGS TO APPROVE PROJECT A. Attached is a listing of the findings required either under the general plan or under the zoning/subdivision ordinance for approval of this development plan project. B. Potentially Relevant General Plan Policies - Listed below are a selection of general plan policies that have relevance to the proposed project followed by staff evaluations of consistency with these policies. 1. The Land Use Element contains several relevant policies for the Kensington area: Policy 3-191: Allow for review of new residential development that provides reasonable protection for existing residences in the Kensington community with regards to: view, design compatibility, (including building bulk, size, and height), adequate parking, privacy and access to sunlight. Policy 3-192: Preservation of views of scenic natural features (e.g. . bay, mountains) and the developed environment (e.g. bridges, city skyline) should be incorporated into. the review of development applications. Policy 3-193: Review proposed residential development for design compatibility with nearby development (e.g. building mass, height, mechanical devices) and provision for adequate parking. Policy 3-194: New residential development will be reviewed against realistic impacts of privacy and sunlight on surrounding neighbors. Policy 3-195: Consideration will be given to review of non- residential development in the Kensington community with policies 3-191 through 3-194 herein. 2. General Land Use Element Policies: 3-15: The design of new buildings and rehabilitation of existing buildings shall reflect and improve the existing character of the commercial districts in the County. 5-21 File, #DP03-3047 August 14, 2007 . 3-16: Community appearance shall be upgraded by encouraging redevelopment,where appropriate, to replace inappropriate uses. 3-18: Flexibility in the design of projects shall be encouraged in order to enhance scenic qualities and provide for a varied development pattern. 3-34: Local shopping facilities shall be distributed and spaced at intervals to accommodate the requirements of residential neighborhoods, minimize travel times, and reduce energy costs. The neighborhood commercial infill project is located in the Commercial land use designation of the General Plan. The project provides distinct styles, desirable amenities and attractive design. Therefore, staff believes the proposed project with recommended conditions of approval will result in a project consistent with both the general policies and the specific General Plan policies for Kensington. 3. The site and general area are within the Urban Limit Line. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS In the event that the Planning Commission is dissatisfied with the recommended findings and/or conditions of approval, the Planning Commission may consider alternative actions. Any consideration of alternatives should be based on whether required findings for this project can be made. Listed below are potential approaches which the Commission could consider: a. Planning Commission Unable to Make Findings Required for Granting_a development plan under the P-1 Zoning - It is staffs conclusion that as conditioned, all P-1 findings can be made for this project. However, the Planning Commission may view it differently. The applicant is not necessarily entitled to approval of a modified development plan under the P-1 zoning. From staffs perspective, the proposed development is suitable given the General Plan's land use designation, the level of development already permitted in the area, that the site is within the Urban Limit Line. b. Planning Commission Finds that Staff Recommended Project Changes are Not Necessary to Make Required Findings - The Planning Commission could determine that the staff recommended modifications are not necessary to make the required project findings. In this instance, the Commission could elect to delete any or all of those conditions and approve a project more in accord with what the applicant has proposed. AcuG:�curr-p1an\Staff Reports\DP033047-staff report.doc 5-22 File, #DP03-3047 August 14, 2007 • REQUIRED FINDINGS TO APPROVE PROJECT A. Growth Management Performance Standards 1. Traffic - (Refer to Detailed Policies and Standards in the Growth Management Element of the General Plan.) 2. Water - The County pursuant to its police power and as the proper governmental entity responsible for directly regulating land use density or intensity, property development and the subdivision of property within the unincorporated areas of the County, shall require new development to demonstrate that adequate water quantity and quality can be provided. At the project approval stage, the County may consult with the appropriate water agency. The County, based on information furnished or available to it from consultations with the appropriate water agency, the applicant or other sources, should determine whether (1) capacity exists within the water system if a development project is built within a set period of time, or (2) capacity will be provided by a funded program or other mechanism. Project approvals conditioned on (1) or (2) above, will lapse according to their terms if not satisfied by verification that capacity exists to serve the specific project ("will serve letters"), actual hook-ups or comparable evidence of adequate water quantity and quality availability. 3. Sanitary Sewer - The County pursuant to its police power and as the proper governmental entity responsible for directly regulating land use density or intensity, property development and the subdivision of property within the unincorporated areas of the County, shall require new development to demonstrate that adequate sanitary sewer quantity and quality can be provided. At the project approval stage, the County may consult with the appropriate sewer agency. The County, based on information furnished or available to it from consultations with the appropriate sewer agency, the applicant or other sources, should determine whether (1) capacity exists within the sewer system if a development project is built within a set period of time, or (2) capacity will be provided by a funded program or other mechanism. Project approvals conditioned on (1) or (2) above, will lapse according to their terms if not satisfied by verification that capacity exists to serve the specific project ("will serve letters"), actual hook-ups or comparable evidence of adequate sewage collection and wastewater treatment capacity availability. 4. Fire Protection - Fire stations shall be located within one and one-half miles of developments in urban, suburban and central business district areas. (Refer to Figure 4-2, pg. 4-9, in the General Plan). Automatic fire sprinkler systems may be used to satisfy this standard. S-23 File, #DP03-3047 August 14, 2007 5. Public Protection - A Sheriff facility standard of 155 square feet of station area per 1,000 population shall be maintained within the unincorporated area of the County. 6. Parks and Recreation - Neighborhood parks: 3 acres required per 1,000 population. 7. Flood Control and Drainage - Require major new development to finance the full costs of drainage improvements necessary to accommodate peak flows due to the project. Limit development within the 100 year flood plain until a flood management plan has been adopted and implementation is assured. For mainland areas along rivers and bays, it must be demonstrated that adequate protection exists through levee protection or change of elevation prior to development. Development shall not be allowed in flood prone areas designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency until a risk assessment and other technical studies have been performed. B. Planned Unit (P-1)District Project Adoption of P- 1 Zoning and Approval of a Preliminary or Final Development Plan a. The applicant intends to start construction within two and one-half years from the effective date of the zoning change and plan approval; b. The proposed planned unit development is consistent with the county general plan; C. In the case of residential development, it will constitute a residential environment of sustained desirability and stability, and will be in harmony with the character of the surrounding, neighborhood and community; d. The development of a harmonious.integrated plan justifies exceptions from the normal application of this code. S-24 PERTINENT CORRESPONDENCE • AGENCY COMMENTS, RESPONSES & REPORTS • LETTERS IN SUPPORT OF PROJECT • LETTERS IN OPPOSITION OF PROJECT AGENCY COMMENTS, RESPONSES & REPORTS PPIN Contra Costa County MOM - Public Works - ` =� Department 3= "J7 Interoffice MemoJ vi Lr'UA t, r . TO: Mike Henn, Project Planner, Community Development Department DATE: December 26, 2007 FROM: Lawrence Gossett, Consulting Civil Engineer, Engineering Services Divisionx� SUBJECT: REVISED SITE PLAN &CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (Hammonds/Colusa Avenue/Kensington/AP No. 571-331-001, 002 & 003) FILE: PERMIT DP 03-3047 We have reviewed the revised site plan for the proposed development permit received by your office on December 22, 2007 and submit the following comments: We have had several meetings with the Community Development Department and Supervisor Gioia's office subsequent to the Planning Commission hearing on this project on August 14, 2007. Part of the intent of these meetings and site visits was to look at not only the project, but the neighborhood in general to develop project enhancements that would blend increased parking opportunities while promoting traffic calming and create a pedestrian-friendly environment. Some of the ideas go beyond the scope of this particular project and will have to be implemented in conjunction with other pending entitlements. Others may need to be addressed specifically by the County. Based on some of the concepts agreed upon at the on-site meetings, Public Works forwarded a conceptual plan to the Project Architect, who then incorporated and enhanced the recommended modifications into this most current site plan. The most significant modification proposed occurs at the corner of Colusa Avenue and Santa Fe Avenue. An "entry" to the Colusa Circle area has been added by extending the existing curb return further north, which should also result in additional parking and reduce pedestrian street crossing distance at the intersection. Due to this revision and some other minor changes, we recommend the following modifications to the Public Works administered conditions of approval that were previously approved by the Planning Commission. These changes are noted herein for review and action by the Board of Supervisors. The prior"Advisory Notes" are unchanged. LG:ms G:\EngSvc\Larry Gossett\2007\December\DP 03-3047(COA 2nd update).doc Cc: Supervisor Gioia—District 1 B. Balbas, Public Works—Admin 1. Fahy, Public Works—Transportation Engineering(Traffic) G. Huisingh, Public Works—Engineering Services S.Gospodchikov, Public Works—Engineering Services M. Sen, Public Works- Engineering Services Ed Hammonds 0 384 Colusa Avenue Kensington,CA 94707 255 Glacier Drive Martinez,CA 94553-4825 TEL: (925)313-2000• FAX: (925)313-2333 www.cccpublicworks.org Transcribed telephone message-RE: Colusa Circle-DP 03-3047 wTo: Mike Henn From: Brown Taylor, Kensington Police Chief Dated: Thursday August 23, 2007 9:30 am Hi Mike, this is Brown Taylor calling from Kensington returning your call actually. I have just received the package that you sent with regard to the project that is the development on Colusa Circle; Ed Hammonds, I think, is the applicants name that is moving that along. Anyway, he had asked us to go down and do some traffic enforcement studies and we had one of the community members there that was also concerned about traffic. Frankly, we see no impact. So far the community member expressed some concern with people riding bikes during the commute hours and people not stopping for pedestrians in the crosswalks. We deploy people there in the morning and the afternoon and when drivers see a cop car in the area, they're not going violate somebody's rights in the pedestrian walkway, and we saw absolutely nothing more than that, so our input for this project is pretty minimal and we'll probably have to go with what the traffic study said initially. If we have an issue from that point forward then we can look at other traffic mitigation measures, but right now you have a big circle in the middle of the street that certainly adds to traffic mitigation. The only other issue would be bicyclists --you know and that falls within the realm of the traffic engineer because it's approaching the development,the officer that was there said it was moving well beyond where the development was supposed to be. So I don't know that we have more to add at this point. Transcribed by Joyce Ring-Reaves 9-6-07 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY N DATE: June 14, 2007 TO: Mike Henn, Project Planner, Community Development Department FROM: Lawrence Gossett, Consulting Civil Engineer, Engineering Services Division SUBJECT: PERMIT DP 03-3047 PARKING STUDY COMMENTS & REVISED CONDITIONS (Hammonds/Colusa, Oak View, & Santa Fe Ave./Kensington/AP # 571-331- 01,02,03) FILE: DP 03-3047 Due to neighborhood concerns over the perceived lack of parking that could result as the result of this project, an updated parking/traffic study was prepared by Wilbur Smith & Associates. I have reviewed the study dated May 22, 2007 and forwarded it to the County Traffic Engineer as well. This prior study was'undertaken as part of the original project approval process in 1983 which M indicated the cumulative project area was underparked. This resulted in several mitigation measures including pavement widening to allow on-street diagonal parking, and modifications to traffic circulation patterns. Because the scope of this project is less intense than the originally approved permit, we felt it appropriate to re-examine the situation to determine if the prior mitigation measures and improvements warrant some modification. As a matter of practice, we generally do not endorse diagonal parking along public streets. Due to the sight distance restrictions for vehicles backing out, diagonal parking is more of a traffic hazard than parallel parking. If the project is developed as proposed and the diagonal parking is later determined to be an excessive traffic hazard, the County Traffic Engineer could recommend to the Board of Supervisors that the diagonal striping be removed and the parking be reconfigured as parallel parking, thus eliminating seven of the parking spaces along Santa Fe Avenue and/or five spaces along Oak View Avenue. With this in mind, it does not seem appropriate to credit the on-street parking towards the parking requirements for the project. Additional comments relative to the Smith study itself are as follows: 1. The parking spaces on the west side of Santa Fe Avenue should not be included in the calculation of parking occupancy. The west side of the street is within the boundaries of the City of El Cerrito, and as such, they control the parking and any possible future restrictions. If the City can assure that they will not restrict parking to residences only, then it would be acceptable to include the supply in the occupancy analysis. Otherwise, do not include these spaces. 2. What i ° s the basis for the 28/o reduction factor proposed on Page 9 of the study? The reductions factors are 3%, 5%, and 20%, for transit use, walking, and mixed-use character, respectively. 3. County Code parking requirements suggest that 37 spaces be provided for this development. Reducing this by the 28% reduction factor results in 27 spaces being required, but the study deems 25 spaces as adequate. What is the basis for the difference between the two? What are the resultant ratios if the spaces on the west side of Santa Fe were not available (per Bullet #1) and the County had to restore the east side of Santa Fe to parallel parking? 4. On Page 10, feasibility of providing 40-degree angled parking on Santa Fe Avenue cites industry standards that are not recognized by the County. The analysis should use County Code 82-16.012, not the Urban Land Institutes publication, "The Dimensions of Parking," to determine the required parking dimensions that ultimately impact whether encroachment into the traveled way will occur or not. The same applies for the analysis of the 60-degree angled parking proposed on Oak View Avenue. Resolution of the cumulative impacts of these comments would obviously show the project to still be underparked, although probably not to the extent of the original project. However, we concur that the prior mitigation measures relative to the parking, curb line location and right of . way dedication along Santa Fe Avenue should be modified due to the shallower proposed parking angle. The resultant recommended mitigation measure and condition of approval should be modified to read as follows: • Widen Santa Fe Avenue as necessary to provide for 40° diagonal parking along the project frontage. The face of the new curb shall be 33.11 feet from the existing centerline of Santa Fe Avenue to provide a 14-foot wide northbound lane. A minimum 6.5-foot sidewalk shall be installed (width measured from curb face), along with street lights and all necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage facilities. The other recommended conditions of approval in our staff report dated February 21, 2007 are still applicable. LG:ms G:\EngSvc'd,arry GOssen%2007Uune\DP 03-3047(Parking Study).doc cc: B.Balbas.Engineering Services E.Mian.Engineering Services M.Sen,Engineering Services ].Fahy.Traffic Engineering ,Gommunity (r'1 Dennis M. Barry.AICP Contra ey Community Development Director Development ; .R COSta / '�:. )-I S ��(� ��' ►,��_. L j _,.i .r �. Department �'•� - t. _ County ,-T _ County Administration Building }' fitj��/J: TysE_,-c f `� Z~ 651 Pine Street ( C C7 ) Al 41h Floor, North Wing �(� %;`Y J�tom, -7 t �. t lied Martinez,California 94553-0095 o' „a; 3 i >�'-i��c' r -� J� f " (925)335-1210 E'' -� �; ----- Date: �� Phone: couN i AGENCY COMMENT REQUEST We request your comments regarding the attached application currently under revie'Vj'. DISTRIBUTION Please submit your comments as follows: Building Inspection HSD, Environmental Health, Concord Project Planner HSD, Hazardous Materials P/M1- Flood Control (Full Size) County File (Full Size) Number:-�, �' ��, 7 P/W- Engineering Svcs I - -7U- Date Forwarded _P/W Traffic (Reduced) Prior To: i1 .ICL -�.�, Cit.• CSC _P/W Special Districts (Reduced) _Comprehensive Planning We have found the following special programs _Redevelopment Agency apply to this application: Historical Resources Information System . _CA Native Amer. Her. Comm. Redevelopment Area CA Fish & Game,Region —US Fish & Wildlife Service l Active Fault Zone )," Fire District Sanitary District_ lz" of Flood Hazard Area,Panel # Water District —�- i if Y F,,.c L)Itpf City 60 dBA Noise Control School District ' Sheriff Office - Admin. & Comm. Svcs. CA EPA Hazardous Waste Site Alamo Improvement Association —El Sobrante Pig. & Zoning Committee Traffic Zone — MAC DOIT - Dep. Director, Communications CEQA Exempt _CAC R-7A Alamo Categorical Exemption Section Community Organizations Please indicate the code section of recommendations that are required by law or ordinance. Please send co ies of your response to the Applicant & ON-mer. No comments on this application. _ Our Comments are attached Comments: Sicnature - cr S <D Agency 5:cvrre::[niannue_%temoistes/formc/a!!enn MnUnC; rr�gest Date Office Hours Monday- Friday: 8:00 a.m.- 5:00 p.m. Office i5 closed the 1S1 '3rri F, rich Fr.ia\ c r%f onrh month MEMO To: Mike Henn, Contra Costa Community Development Center. From: Michael J. Bond, Fire Prevention Officer Subject: Building Memo: Colusa Circle, DP03- 3047 Date: April 10, 2007 The Fire Department submits the following comments and/or requirements regarding this application: 1. Building Construction A. Building construction shall meet current UFC, UBC, UMC,NEC, CFC, and CBC. B. Building plans shall be submitted to theifensington/El Cerrito Fire Department for review and approval before a building permit is issued 2. Fire Set Backs A. Maintain required fire separations between structures. 3. Fire Hydrants A. Provide water flow requirements per CFS 2001, Table A-III-1 B. Maintain fire hydrant spacing requirements per CFC 2001, Table A-III-13-1 based on required water flow. 4. Premises Identification A. Approved numbers or address shall be internally illuminated and placed in such a position to be plainly visible and legible from the street fronting the property. 5. Access A. If windows in sleeping areas are being replaced, at least one window being replaced in each sleeping area shall be rescue/emergency escape type and conform to CBC 310.4 B. Maintain minimum setbacks as indicated on plans for 360 degree emergency response and operations. C. Exterior doors, openings and emergency escape windows shall be maintained readily accessible for emergency access by the Fire Department. All-weather surface(s) with level surfaces to the rear and sides of the building below emergency escape windows or doors of the residence shall be provided. D. All-weather surface(s) with level surfaces to the rear and sides of the building below emergency escape windows or doors of the residence shall be provided. 6. Construction debris shall be deposited in a dumpster on a daily basis. Page Two Plan Review: Building Memo: Colusa Circle, DP03- 3047 April 10, 2001 7. Installation of smoke detectors through out new construction and existing residence if not already installed per CBC 310.16.2(a)(1) A. Smoke alarms in new spaces shall be powered by 110v current with a battery back-up. Location on smoke detectors shall be installed per manufactures recommendations and in each sleeping room and in adjacent areas giving access to the sleeping rooms. B. In multilevel dwellings there shall be smoke alarms at each level. C. Smoke alarms installed in areas not undergoing alteration may be battery powered 8. Vegetation Management Standards Project is located within the designated Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) and therefore is subject to the following: A. The Kensington Fire Protection District requires that all roofing be Class B or better and all wood shake shingle roofing and siding materials are prohibited B. Ornamental landscaping is encouraged to enhance fire safety. Ornamental landscaping consists of decorative plants growing within a tended garden or yard, which is well watered, maintained, and located to provide aesthetic decoration and functional utility. C. Install spark arrester over chimney outlet with a maximum %2"opening. D. Fuel breaks and firebreaks shall be maintained in accordance with standards. Contact the Fire Department for Vegetation Management Standards. 9. Inspection A. Provide Fire Prevention Division with 96-hour notice prior to any inspections. Building Construction Plan Review Michael J. Bond Fire Prevention Officer (510) 215-4457 mbond@ci.el-cenito.ca.us Communitv Contra r-,) Dennis M. Barry,AICP J Communfty Development Director Development Costa Department County County Administration BIGif JiR i, ( c_I Q -- --i L 651 Pine Street i J `� ` 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, California 94553-0095 ''} - %q (925)335-1210 Phone: `'°�sr,;-------��`� Date: cOUN AGENCY COMMENT REQUEST We request your comments regarding the attached a plication currently under review. DISTRIBUTION Please submit your comments as follows: �C Building Inspection HSD,Environmental Health, Concord Project Planner`':,,(- (��'� �' y. HSD,Hazardous Materials P/W-Flood Control (Full Size) County File P/W-Engineering Svcs (Full Size) Number: P 30�' Date Forwarded —P/W Traffic(Reduced) Prior To: P/W Special Districts (Reduced) " — Comprehensive Planning We have found the following special programs Redevelopment Agency apply to this application: —Historical Resources Information System — CA Native Amer. Her. Comm. A/0 Redevelopment Area — CA Fish & Game,Region —US Fish & Wildlife Service i(ro Active Fault Zone N --5,1 Fire District � Sanitary Distract Sfe Flood Hazard Area,Panel# -�Watei•District'"'�`� wi vp City it/O 60 dBA Noise Control — School District(�•�^n 5q7" Co" Se 1-V Sheriff Office -Admin.'& Comm. Svcs. bio CA EPA Hazardous Waste Site —Alamo Improvement Association —El Sobrante Plg. & Zoning Committee Traffic Zone DOIT-Dep.Director, ommunications CEQA Exempt CAC R-7A Alamo Categorical Exemption Section Community Organizations S- 7,V8 Please indicate the code section of recommendations that are required by law or ordinance. Please send coypies of your response to the Applicant & Owner. No comments on this application. Our Comments are attached Comments: Signature N ��yD Agency S:current planning/templates/forms/a-.envy comment request Date Office Hours Monday- Friday: 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Office is closed the 1 st, 3rd & 5th Fridays of each month Contr community Dennis M. Barry.AICP a Development Community Development Director osta k DelDartmentED ounty County Administration Buil 'i g 5E 1 651 Pine Street 0c) jz�'� I 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, California 94553-0 95 INSEE (925)335-1210 Phone: Date: YA AGENCY COMMENT REQUEST Were nest your comments regarding the attached application currently under review. DISTRIBUTION Please submit your comments as follows: Building Inspection F �' - I/ I HSD, Environmental Health, Concord Pro cl L' J tl? Project Planner HSD9 Hazardous Materials P/W - Flood Control (Full Size) County File �'P/W - Engineering Svcs Tull Size) Number: 1) L - Q--:�L-� 7 Date Forwarded —P/W Traffic (Reduced) Prior —P11A1 Special Districts (Reduced) — Comprehensive Planning We have found the following special programs —Redevelopment Agency apply to this application: —Historical Resources Information System — CA Native Amer. Her. Comm. t Redevelopment Area — CA Fish & Game, Region —US Fish & Wildlife Service Active Fault Zone Fire District Sanitary District- Flood Hazard Area,Panel # Water District f F- City i -------------- 60 dBA Noise Control School District Sheriff Office -Admin. & Comm. Svcs. —CA EPA Hazardous Waste Site Alamo Improvement Association El Sobrante Pla. & Zoning Committee MA C —Traffic Zone —DOIT - Dep. Director, Communications —CEQA Exempt —CAC R-7A Alamo Categorical Exemption Section Community Organizations Please indicate the code section of recommendations that are required by law or ordinance. Please send copies of your response to the Applicant& Oi-mer. IND comments on this application. --Y Our Comments are allee4ed Comments: J�iLUL[Ojl,'C, J)r=5L(j,) -To C-'VIP'-y Signature . /��..�.t�/E�uGp i� Dt=siGaJ i3u6�o,n�Gi S�►i�ai•c7 ��.1�� Agency e� .5 A>) Ziii��comrnei!;rvqquest Date Office Hours Monday - Friday: 8:00 a.m.- 5:00 p.m. Office is closed the 1st. 3rd & 5th Fridays of each month Community Denrit is M. Barry.AICP Contra Community Development Director DevelopRECEIVED Costa ment 1" = � , )1 " "It Department )L�;,- - - r-1 � " IL ::f L * -�-d CDunty L County Administration Building -7 651 Pine Street I�TNCT 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez,California 94553-0095 L (925)335-1210 J7T Phone: Date: AGENCY COMMENT REQUEST We request your comments regarding the attached application currently under review. DISTRIBUTION Please submit your comments as follows: Building Inspection A HSD, Environmental Health, Concord Project Planner HSD, Razardoi--s Materials PM1 . Flood Control (Full Size) County File —,4E - - I T/W -Engineering Svcs (Full Size) Number: /f i L > 7 Date Forwarded P/W Traffic (Reduced) -7 Prior To: PM1 Special Districts (Reduced) Comprehensive Planning We have found the fol-lowing special programs Redevelopment Agency b apply to this application: Historical Resources Information System — CA Native Amer. Her. Comm. Redevelopment Area — CA Fish & Game, Region —US Fish &Wildlife Service Active Fault Zone Fire District �11 I 4/A Sanitary District Flood Hazard Area,Panel Water District Oept, City 60 dBA Noise Control School District Sheriff Office - Admin. & Comm. Svcs. CA EPA Hazardous Waste Site Alamo Improvement Association El Sobrante Mg. & Zoning, Committee Traffic Zone Mg. MAC DOIT- Dep. Director, Communications CEQA Exempt CAC R-7A Alamo Categorical Exemption Section Community Organizations 7— Please indicate the code section of recommendations that are required by law or ordinance. P1 send ' copies of your response to the Applicant & 01-Der. No comments on this application. 'ZOur Comments are attached C o rn rn e nt,s: SignaVre Agency C-7 Sxurre.-.-i piannir--,'temr)!L-Ievform,,Iaeen I/ - Q,coffimei:; rvquest Date Office Hours Monday - Friday: 8:00 a.m.- 5:00 p.m. Office is closed the 1 st. 3rd & 5th Fridays of each month STEGE SANITARY DISTRICT District Mamrger/Ertgineer. Board of Directors: Douglas Humphrey.P.E. Graham Brand Jay Z.James District Counsel.• Dwight Merrill Michael S.Riback Alan C.Miller Beatrice R.O'Keefe March 14, 2007 County Administration Building 651 Pine Street 4'"Floor, North Wing. Martinez, CA 94.153-0095 To Mike Henn: The proposed project lies within the boundaries of the Stege Sanitary District and sanitary sewer service is available subject to this District's regulations and requirements regarding such service that includes but is not limited to: • The minimum inside diameter of side sewers (laterals) to serve commercial buildings shall be six (6) inches. • All new building side sewers (laterals) including side sewer (lateral) replacements shall be equipped with a backflow protection device (BPD). • Pay fees for all new fixtures • A Sanitary Sewer Capacity Study is required. Any sanitary sewer work from a point two (2)feet outside the building foundation to the connection to the public sewer shall be subject to the regulations of the Stege Sanitary District. A Stege Sanitary District connection permit and payment of fees are required prior to any work on the sewer lines. Connection and testing should be made in the presence of a Stege Sanitary District representative. This letter does not imply approval of any proposed sanitary sewerage facilities or concepts that may be shown on the preliminary drawings. If you have any further questions on this matter please feel free to call us at (510) 524-4668. Sincerely, At z es E gine ech. II/1i7spector 7500 SCHMIDT LANE • P.O.BOX 537,EL CERRITO,CA 94530-0537 (510)524-4668 FAX:(510)524-4697 Stege Sanitag District serving Kensington, El Cerrito, and the Richmond Annex SANITARY SEWER CAPACITY STUDY CRITERIA PURPOSE The sanitary sewer capacity study shall analyze the impact of the proposed project on the capacity of the existing sanitary sewer system. The developer shall pay for all costs associated with the study. If a study is required, no "will serve" letter will be issued until the District determines the required improvements, if any. TRIGGER A sanitary sewer study shall be required for a proposed project if it exceeds one or more of the following criteria: 1. 10 or more residential dwelling units 2. 10,000 square feet of office or commercial facility 3. 1,000 square feet of restaurant 4. Laundromat and/or industrial laundry CP.ITERIA 1. At a minimum, two manhole locations shall be flow monitored for a two-week wet weather period to determine existing flow characteristics. The locations shall be at the sewer line nearest the project site, and at the nearest-trunk line.The monitoring shall be dynamic,continuous and be recorded at 15-minute intervals. 48 ? The analysis of this data will use the following peaking factors for dry weather flow: 4.5 for local lines 1.5 for trunk lines 3. In lieu of wet weather monitoring, wet weather flow will be calculated at 400%of peak dry weather flow. 4. Fixture unit equivalents shall be used to determine the amount of proposed project flow. 5. The average family unit shall be 3.0 persons per residence and 100 gal/person/day for proposed residential flows. FINDINGS 1. Existing capacity of system. 2. The post-development capacity of system. 3. Percent(%)of pipe full at peak flow. 4. Confirm adequacy of existing local and trunk lines for both existing and anticipated future flows. Recommended actions required to mitigate any impact that overcharges the system. FLOW MONITORING Developers may use a reputable company of their choice to perform flow monitoring required by the Sanitary Sewer Capacity Study. The following company is one of many companies that will provide services of the type required by these criteria. The District is not recommending this firm, but merely makes their contact information available as a customer service. E2 Consulting Contact Person:Jeff Blum 1900 Powell Street, Suite 250 (510) 652-1164 Office Enieiyville, CA 94608 (510) 652-5604 Fax 7500 SCHMIDT LANE • EL CERRITO,CA 94530-0537 • (510)524-4668 • FAX: (510)524-4697 • www.StegeSD.dst.ca.us KENSINGTON MUNICIPAL ADVISORY COUNCIL 0- March March 7, 2005 Mr. Ed Hammonds 411 Colusa Avenue Kensington, CA 94707 Ms. Carol Chisholm 625 Santa Fe Avenue Albany, CA 94706 Re: Traffic/Parking, Study for Colusa Circle Dear Mr. Hammonds.- Dear ammonds:Dear Ms. Chisholm: I spoke with Mr. Narsai David on Friday afternoon, March 4, concerning KMAC's request for a parking/traffic study needed for KMAC to make recommendations upon the projects that each of you wish to pursue in the Colusa Circle area of Kensington. I explained to him that (1) we would ask him for a similar study should he come to us with proposals to evaluate in the future and (2) if he had some proposals in mind at this time, it would be to his advantage to share costs with the two of you. The conclusions of our conversation were: 1. Mr. David is not interested in participating in such a study at this time as he is not aware of your current development plans. 2. He would like to see your current proposals, and based upon his opinion of them, he might be willing to reconsider his decision. Sincerely, Ray B arraza KMAC Chair 248 Amherst Avenue Kensington, CA 94708 Cc: Mike Henn Contra Costa County Community Development Dept. LRA FT, not yet adopted by KJVI C A-4 � �_z � _�7 . KENSINGTON MUNICIPAL ADVISORY COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY, MAY 299 2007 1. The meeting commenced at 7:00pm and the following council members were present: Chair Reyes Barraza, Vice Chair Patrick Tahara, Members Pamela Brown and Kay Reed, and Alternate Member Chris Brydon. 2. The minutes of April 24, 2007 were approved by a vote of 5-0 with the following revisions: a) On page three. in the first paragraph, the applicant's name is Bramson not Bronson. b) On pages four through six, the applicant's name is Hammonds not Hammond. c) On page three, paragraph four, Chair Barraza's question should refer to "two of four" not "three quarters." d) On page four, last paragraph, Mrs. Farve's address should be 1601 not 164 Ocean View. e) On page five, second paragraph, it should read Marilyn Stollon, not Mary Stollon. 3. Citizens' Comments: Member Reed provided a list of items that Kensington residents would need for 5 days after an earthquake. 4. Consent Items: None • 5. Colusa Circle (DP 033047) Request for a substantial amendment to approved Planned Unit Development 3056-82 to allow modification of Phases III and IV in the triangular block bounded by Colusa Ave., Santa Fe Ave. and Oak View Ave. Continued public hearing. Chair Barraza began the discussion by stating the criteria required to meet the Kensington combining ordinance and the state requirements for obtaining a variance. The applicant, Ed Hammonds, provided an introduction to the project and said it was his sixth appearance before KMAC. He stated he has made significant changes since the original plan and has reduced the size of the project. At that point, he turned it over to his architect, Alex Korn, to quickly walk through the project. Mr. Kom described the triangular plot and the building that will be constructed on the corner where old gas station is and then building where the old mural was located. He re-iterated that this is a smaller plan than the original proposal and presented several photos with the proposed building imposed on the current site. He also referred to the Wilbur Smith parking and traffic study that indicated proposed parking was sufficient for the proposal. Mr. Hammonds then described that the project has evolved and is substantially better. He stated the traffic and parking issues are a myth that hopefully would be debunked with the parking analysis, which also reflected his personal experience that parking wasn't a problem. Mr. Hammonds believed his experience showed that he focused on trying to get the right businesses for the neighborhood that wouldn't have detrimental impact in terms of traffic and parking. Finally, he presented an article about Narsai David's back in 1983 and how that had a greater impact on the neighborhood than his commercial operations. . Ic.`huuuir LDuu[a asked wLc_c_ cur,cit ci]pl u-v ecS pari. Mr. Hammonds indicated some walk to work and most park along Oak View and Santa Fe. Member Reed asked why the Wilbur Smith parking study was limited from lam to 4pm. Mr. Hammonds indicated that the morning and 1 afternoon were the focus of his businesses and that most close at Spm. Member Tahara asked if there were any planned restrictions on parking on Saturday and Sunday or in the evenings and Mr. Hammonds said no. Member Tahara asked about how the assumptions were made on transit and walking expectations and Mr. Hammonds said it was based on Wilbur Smith's experience in other similar studies and their familiarity with the Circle. Tom Morabito of 1550 Oak View expressed his support for the project. Mr. Morabito has directed the Claremont Nursery School for 30 years. He has seen development come to Colusa Circle in a slow and measured way and he believes the local business community would like to see more development around the Circle, "Mr. Hammonds style development." Mr. Morabito indicated that some of the Nursery School parents had concerns about one-way traffic and safety for the Nursery School. However, Mr. Morabito believed there is more distance from the Circle to the Nursery School than from Santa Fe to the Nursery school, and there is additional parking that will be brought to the area. He also stated that his staff does not currently have problems with parking. Russell Cotteral, a resident at 190 Purdue, is an optometrist at 291 Arlington. He sent a letter into KMAC and supports this project. He believes that development would improve the properties in the neighborhood and feels this would encourage others to develop and/or improve their properties around Colusa Circle as well. Rodney Paul of 1619 Oak View Avenue is not in favor of the project. He respects a lot that Mr. Hammonds has done in the neighborhood but he wants reasonable density in the neighborhood. He thinks parking for that density is not sufficient with county standards requiring 37 parking spots instead of the 25 intended. He also expressed concerns about the lack on activity on the Circle now and what will happen to the parking situation when vacant business become occupied and the potential development on the lot that now provides illegal parking. He thought the parking study was useful but he was concerned about the lack of information on traffic and that the parking study ended at 4pm, not bpm. Sarah Paul of 1619 Oak View is also concerned that 401 Colusa Circle development is not considered part of the overall plan and that they should be considered as one. She also expressed concerns that there are different reviewers at the county for these projects, not one single point of review. Janet Hittle of 1612 Oak View Avenue doesn't believe a 3-story building is in scale with the project and would prefer a 2-story project instead which would then alleviate parking as well. .She also expressed concern about the impact development on the other areas on Colusa Circle. Ellen Mills of 1648 Oak View Avenue is concerned about the parking study analysis ending of the study at 4pm. She thinks that time period is particularly difficult for parking in the neighborhood because of those coming home from work. Jody Zaitlin of 297 Berkeley Park is concerned about the diagonal street parking. As a bicycler, she said it is difficult for cars to see cyclists and to anticipate issues. She is concerned that the impact of the change will make it narrower, and she also thought if the density of the development was less, it could help. Paul Mills of 1648 Oak View Avenue was interested how the project looks and how it will affect traffic flow. He is a dog walker and is concerned about the loss of trees in the neighborhood. Also, he has concerns with loss of light in the neighborhood with a 3-story. John Joseph Clark of 125 Santa Fe Avenue is concerned about the impact on his property value. He is concerned about looking out on a parking lot, instead of the trees in the lot now. He also is concerned that there is 'Little enforcement of speeding issues currently in the neighborhood. He thought it would be great to see development at the Circle,but would like to keep the trees and . the neighborhood, not commercial feel. Jan Dederick of 121 Santa Fe is a poet and read off a poem on the issue. Unfortunately the KMAC note taker (aka Member Brown) wasn't able to record the prose in its entirety, but attempted to collect some of the primary sentiments. Ms. Dederick expressed that the neighbors don't feel good about the project, commented on the growth of the cedars and expressed her enjoyment of currently taking a short cut for a croissant. She says she loves to see the therapy patients and parking is still tricky but ok. Too high, too dense, too much...We are only at 50% capacity,but capacity of what? The question should not be how many parking spaces can we squeeze in,but instead how much is the green worth. She referred to the development monster whose bottom line will be impacted. We don't like it...fix it so we all like it. Colleen Villarroel of 119 Santa Fe Avenue is a former city dweller and now lives in Kensington. She is concerned about what kind of businesses would come into the neighborhood when the El Cerrito and Solano developments currently exist. She is concerned about parking and volume of traffic, especially at rush hour. Marilyn.Stollon of 12 Eldridge Court echoed some of the concerns about the traffic and parking issues that have been discussed. She contends that the parking analysis doesn't address the fact of vacant businesses that currently exist in the neighborhood and the employee count in the neighborhood. Based on her analysis, she thinks another 14-23 spaces would be needed if those missing employees/businesses were considered. When new development comes about it needs to be sensible density, so that we are not falling all over ourselves and that parking is convenient. Jean Langford at 8 Eldridge Court is concerned about the angle parking on Oak View and is concerned about the narrow nature of the street. Jenny Schaffell is concerned about delivery trucks that may be coming to the neighborhood and other parking situations. In response, Mr. Hammonds said that many of the concerns are a reaction to change and fear of the unknown. He said he has been here 30 years and is only proposing two to three new shops. He said if neighbors had concerns, to come to his Colusa Circle office and he will listen to neighborhood concerns. He said about specific parking issues, handicapped parking provides one van accessible parking spot which is required and there is a loading space on Colusa to address deliveries. He said there is also a patio space provided with seating. He would like to keep the trees but can't for parking. Chair Barraza believes the current proposal provides a sense of place and supports that aspect. He said there has been a lot of discussion on parking, and Mr. Hammonds shouldn't have to correct current neighborhood problems but he should be asked to increase parking supply to handle the needs of his proposed expansion. Chair Barraza said he has gone through the neighborhood on multiple occasions and multiple times to examine the parking situation. He said he found issues with parking late in the neighborhood, particularly in residential areas. He said parking was trickier after 4pm, but he could always find some spaces available. Chair Barraza completed a separate analysis to examine parking needs and based on his review believes there needs to be 33 parking spaces instead of 39 required by the county. He doesn't support a three story structure. If the third story is removed, then it comes down to 22 new spaces needed . With iiis analysis. He is also not supportive of the one way on Oak View. Member Reed had several questions. First, is the applicant planning to put bicycle parking on the lot? Mr. Hammonds said yes. Second, is there any way you might want be able to keep the N trees and still have parking? Mr. Hammonds said no. Third, what is the current plan for street trees for the neighborhood? Mr. Hammonds said it was too early in the review process, but he is open to comments on what might be most beneficial. Finally, Member Reed said to the audience that if you see an enforcement problem, "call the cops"...that's why we pay them. She thinks a one-way street is safer than two-way for the Nursery School kids. Vice Chair Tahara recognizes that as a planned unit development, there are no conditions on height. But he is aware there is a building across the street that is 47stories and seems comparable to the planned development. He asked the applicant why he moved the third story back on Colusa, but not on Santa Fe. Mr. Hammonds said it was due to limitations on what could then be done with that space. Vice Chair Tahara asked if there is there any handicapped parking on the on-street parking. Mr. Hammonds said no. Vice Chair Tahara asked if the applicant would you be willing to make the size of the trees on Santa Fe larger on first planting. Mr. Hammonds said it was something he could consider. Alternate Member Brydon expressed his appreciation for the parking study and some of the traffic study impact. He thinks the building is attractive, but it should also be pulled back on the back side of the lot because it seems large when it is full faced on any side, instead of stepped back. Member Brown also expressed appreciation for the parking analysis. However, she said that it was important that the assumptions were accurate because while it shows there isn't a parking problem currently, despite neighborhood concerns, there is; it also shows that the proposed parking spots minimally meet the need with 2+ spots to spare. With a 4-1 vote, KMAC recommended approval for the plans dated March 28, 2007 with the following conditions: (1) bicycle parking be located on-site, (2) street trees be higher and denser on the Santa Fe side of the development, (3) recommendations of Wilbur Smith &Associates analysis regarding lane widths be adopted, (4) off-street parking be available for neighbors use on evenings and weekends and(S) the third story of"Bldg A " be centered equally between Colusa Ave and Santa Fe Ave rather than offset as shown on the drawings. In addition, KM,4C would like the County to ensure that there is one common county planner for all Colusa Circle projects and that a traffic study be required by any and all applicants proposing development around the Circle. 6. Canon Dr. (DP 063056), Development an review o a proposal to expand an existing residence. Continued public hearing ' Catherine Roha architect on the project, described the changes to thP.-, ect o address concerns of the neighbors. She said-there had been two sets of changes-have been made to the project; overall, the project has been reduced and there are 16 points which show how they have worked on addressing issues for the neighbors. She said one of the applicants' desires was to have the main living space level to the pool. She said they were also interested in using the lower level crawl space as storage and for the furnace, water headducts, etc. She provided photos to show the proposed construction and illustrated potential impact surrounding neighbors and she believed they have addressed many of the concerns for the nei� at. In responding to KMAC questions, Ms. Roha said the height of the crawwi spaces less than seven feet and the area of the-crawl space is 1700 plus square feet. She said that space wo ld address 4 I '1 "Ray Barraza" To "Jennifer Cruz"<jcruz@cd.cccounty.us> `r a <raybarraza@gmail.com> cc "Chris Brydon" <chrisbrydon@yahoo.com>, "Gordon Becker" 05/30/2007 12:04 AM <becker@cemar.org>,"Kay Reed"<kayreed@sonic.net>, "Pam Brown"<calohana@comcast.net>,"Patrick Tahara" bcc Subject KMAC 5/29 Meeting Here are the actions taken at this meeting. Colusa Circle Development (DP 033047) Recommend approval with 5 conditions: 1. Bicycle parking on site 2. Street trees higher and denser on Santa Fe side of the development 3. Recommendations of Wilbur Smith & Assoc. regarding lane widths be adopted 4. Off-street parking available for neighbors use evenings and weekends 5. The third story of"Bldg. A" be centered equally between Colusa Ave and Santa Fe Ave rather than offset as shown on drawings. 605 Canon (DP 063056) Continued • 5 Franciscan (DP 063059) Recommend-approval with 3 conditions: 1. Lower roof by 6 Top of parapet and top of roof not to exceed 510'-6 . Interior ceilings to be modified to`suit.-- y.... 2. Skylights not to be allowed--in-fooms`mawith exterior walls (Kitchen,2 Baths, Closet) 3. Skylights to remain below the top of parapet. 6 Kingston Rd (DP 073010) Recommend approval and found that meets the criteria for a variance. 90 Purdue Ave (DP 073019) No action. Removed from agenda at request of architect and with agreement of KMAC chair,. 1647 Oak View(DP 073024) Recommend approval Questions? Please call. Ray Barraza J Alex Korn AIA 610 Arlington Ave Berkeley CA 94707 June 14`h 2007 Mike Henn Contra Costa County Planning Dept Dear Mike, Here are the revised sets of the building on Colusa Circle. We have made the following changes to match the recommendations of KMAC 1. Bicycle parking has been added between the on-site parking lot and 382-388 Colusa in the small garden area. 2.We have added a tree on the southwest corner of the block and 2 along Santa 40 Fe. The trees when they are planted will be larger on this corner than some of the others. 3.The parallel parking width along the west side of Santa Fe has been increased in size from 8' to 9' and the southbound traffic lane changed to 12' 4. Ed will make the parking lot available during off hours 5. The upper story has been moved to the center and reduced by 2' in width everywhere except at the exit stair per KMAC's request In the course of changing the third floor around I had to massage the other floors slightly. I have redone the gross and useable net square footage calculations. They are as a whole very similar to before and well within the parking study values. There were a few addition errors made before which have been corrected. I hope this is all that you need to get us on the July 2nd hearing date. If you have any questions please call me. Sincerely, Enclosed (2) 2406 sets / (2) 11 x 17 sets (1) 8 1/2"x11" set I gree rtanung - _Aly 01 r.i k,err1LO, t-U1110rma rage 1 01 1 [EL CERRITO HOME) [NEWS&EVENTS] [COMMUNITY] [BUSINESS] [GOVERNMENT] [DEPARTMENTS] [SERVICES] [SITE MAP] Public Works DeparLmem Dept Home Page Street Tree Planting Engineering Maintenance A City Council-approved Master Street_Tree.List is available for tree planting throughout the City of EI Recycling Cerrito.When planning your landscape, please consult the tree list to plant an appropriate tree.The tree list is in pdf format(to obtain the free Adobe Acrobat Reader,click here). n � n Prior to selecting a location to plant a street tree in the parking strip,owners should make sure that they Yk are not planting a tree directly over a sewer line,water service or gas line.Tree roots could damage underground utilities,and you could accidentally damage an underground pipe during excavation to plant the tree. Home owners can determine the location of these underground utilities by calling Underground Service a. Alert(USA)at 1-800-227-2600 before they dig. Utility companies will mark the location of their service lines so you know not to plant a tree in that location.This is a free service,and is required by law for anyone excavating in the public right-of-way.Sewer laterals from your home which go into the street can usually be found by looking for a metal or plastic cleanout cap which is located in the planting strip or just behind the back of the sidewalk.If you are unsure of your sewer line location you can contact Stege Sanitary District at(510)524-4668 or at http://www.stegesd.dst.ca.us/. Once you have chosen a tree and the location,the next steps are: QQ Ili VC..L �IrIQ )�✓b'1c. �vr� • Call(510)215-4382 or e-mail maintengin@ci.el-cerrito.ca.us with your tree selection. // G nnT4,C-f • Apply for an encroachment permit.The issuance fee is$56.00 and is refundable upon a City inspection 1 year from the date the tree is planted.The property owner will be required to sign a 2-year agreement to maintain the tree the first 2 years of its life at the time the encroachment permit is obtained.After two years,the City will then take over the care of the tree. • If a City tree has died,it can be replaced with another tree from the Approved Master Tree List. Please contact the City Maintenance Division at(510)559-7033. Click here for the Master Street Tree List Printer-friendly version �t Y P, 10940 San Pablo Avenue,EI Cerrito,CA 94530-2323 Tel 510 215-4300 Fax 510 215-4319 E-Mail kpinkos@ci.el-cerrito.ca.us www.el-cerrito.org copyright 0 2007 all rights reserved http://www.el-cem'to.org/public works/tree planting.html 7/31/2007 I! ra��FLANNM ologgloof MWOMM • Wi I burSrnith A S S G G I #6r E S May 24,2007 Ed Hammonds 384 Colusa Circle Kensington, CA 94707 Subject: Triangle Building Colusa Avenue Dear Mr.Hammonds, The following letter presents the findings of the parking and traffic study conducted for the proposed development at 370 Colusa Avenue and 384-388 Colusa Avenue, herein referred to as the "proposed project."The letter addresses the existing parking conditions and assesses the impact of the project related traffic associated with the proposed project on the nearby Colusa Circle intersection. The following • transportation topics addressed m this letter include: • Existing parking conditions • Parking requirements • Shared parking methodology • Parking demand • Trip generation • Traffic impacts • Diagonal parking • Summary of conclusions Project Location The project site is located in the area known as Colusa Circle in Kensington California (an unincorporated area of Contra Costa County) on a triangular shaped land parcel bounded by Santa Fe Avenue to the west, Oak View Avenue to the south,and Colusa Avenue to the east. Currently the project site contains four existing buildings. Building 1 is occupied by the Kensington Research Group, Hammonds Investment Company, and two professional offices (384-388 Colusa Avenue). Building 2 is occupied by Semifreddi's Bakery (372 Colusa Avenue); Kensington Cleaners (374 Colusa Avenue); Andre, DeCary & Associates (376 Colusa Avenue); Kensington Cobbler (378 Colusa Avenue), and Alchemy Skin Spa (380 Colusa Avenue). Building 3 is currently a vacant 1-story • 201 Mission Street, Suite 1450 San Francisco, California 94105 415.495.6201 f415.495.5305 www.WilburSmith.com Ed Hammonds May 21,2007 Page 2 • building and is slated to be demolished as part of the proposed project. Building 4 is also vacant and there are similar plans to demolish this building as part of the proposed project. The project site also contains a portion of landscaped open space on the southwest portion of the triangle. This landscaped area will be converted to a surface parking lot as part of the proposed project. Project Description The proposed project would involve the construction of a new 3-story commercial building (Building A) at the north tip of the triangle block (approximately 6,900 square feet) and a 2-story infill commercial building (Building B)approximately 1,400 square feet. This portion of the site is currently occupied by an existing one (1) story building (370 Colusa) and would be demolished as part of the proposed project. It should be noted that immediately south of Building A, the project would allocate approximately 13 off- street spaces for the shared use of Building A and Building B. Building A would consist of three stories; the first floor would include retail uses (2119 square feet). The second (2732 square feet) and third(2009 square feet) floors would be most likely:used as a professional office space. Pedestrians would access Building A through the ground floor entrance located on Santa Fe Avenue. Vehicular access to the proposed project parking spaces would provided via Oak View Avenue, which would provide a curb cut entrance to the off-street surface lot located on the southwest portion of the project site. Building B would consist of ground retail space (approximately 433 square feet), the second floor would be occupied by professional office space (approximately 600 square feet), and the Mezzanine would occupy approximately 386 square feet. Background Tucked near the juncture of El Cerrito, Albany, and Berkeley; Kensington's Colusa Circle is within close proximity to a number of diverse cities. Colusa Circle can be adequately described as a neighborhood serving retail oriented area. The area is alive daily with several small and locally owned businesses including: a bakery/coffee shop, dry cleaners, a local market, and real-estate offices. Additionally, the circle area is also home to a bistro and a popular pub. Overall, the neighborhood is multifunctional and acts as both a source of local employment and a thriving business community. In general, the proposed project site is well served by public transit with both local and regional service provided in the nearby vicinity. AC Transit provides local transit service. Service to and from San Francisco and the greater East Bay is provided by BART. Within the vicinity of the proposed project,AC Transit lines 15 and the G operate at 30 minute frequencies with stops at the intersection of Colusa Avenue and Colusa Circle. Both of these lines.provide direct connections to the El Cerrito BART station, located approximately 0.9 miles west of the proposed project site. • WlburSmlth A ISO C I AT I t Ed Hammonds May 21,2007 Pale 3 • Parking Analysis Documenting how people use available parking spaces provides important information for understanding how existing parking supplies are able to accommodate parking demand. The first step in evaluating existing parking conditions is to define the amount and type of parking spaces provided within the study area. Spaces are typically categorized as either on- and off-street, metered, time-restricted, disabled and reserved/restricted. These designations are important when evaluating any limitations or restrictions to parking utilization and activity. As such, a parking inventory was taken within the designated parking study area which included the number of spaces and type of designation (e.g. time limited, metered, disabled, etc.). To further understand existing parking conditions, it is important to document how vehicles are using spaces. Parking behaviors are observed at individual spaces to determine how many vehicles are using the individual space. Parking turnover refers to the number of vehicles occupying a space throughout the day. To determine parking turnover,the last three digits of a parked vehicle's Iicense plate are recorded at individual spaces. The license plates are then checked at 30 minute intervals over a given time period to determine how long each vehicle was parked and how many vehicles occupied that space. For this study, parking turnover was documented along the perimeter of the project site,namely on Colusa Avenue, Oak View Avenue, and Santa Fe Avenue. Turnover and duration are useful measures in determining the characteristics of the districts' commercial areas, especially for short-term parking. Typically expressed hourly, high turnover indicates that many patrons are using the parking space; therefore the space is operating effectively. Turnover is also affected by how long users are occupying the space. Duration is typizally expressed as tl:e average time vehicles remain parked at the space. Duration is also a good indication of whether time limitations are being properly obeyed and whether more enforcement is warranted. As such, turnover is a measure of parking intensity, while duration is a measure of parking purpose. Parking Conditions The existing parking conditions were examined within a parking study area generally bounded by Santa Fe Avenue to the west, Oak View Avenue to the south, Colusa Avenue to the east. Additionally,parking conditions were also observed on adjacent residential streets to the project site including Berkeley Park Boulevard, Oak View Avenue, Colusa Avenue, and Colusa Circle (see Figure 1). The supply and occupancy of on-street conditions were determined during a typical weekday (Thursday) between 7:00 AM and 4:00 PM. In general, on-street parking in the vicinity of the proposed project is limited to unmetered parking with two-hour time limits and unlimited parking without regulation. Parking Occupancy In general,there are approximately 107 on-street parking spaces within the greater on-street parking study area which operate at about 48 percent of capacity during the morning hours (7:00 AM to 11:00 AM) and about 51 percent during the midday hours (12:00 PM to 4:00 PM). Table 1 presents the morning and midday period parking supply and occupancy data for on-street parking in the study area by blocks. Wilbur5mith A 5 6 0 C I A S ! t Ed Hammonds May 21,2007 Page 4 • Table 1 On-Street Parking Supply and Occupancy Street Between .Sup. Morning Midday Occup. % Occup. Occup. % Occup Berkeley Park Boulevard(N) 342 Berkeley Pk./ 7 6 83/o 5 74% Colusa Cr. Berkeley Park Boulevard(S) 409 Berkeley Pk./ 10 2 2000 0.6 6% Colusa Cr. 419 Colusa Ave/ Colusa Avenue(E) Colusa Cr. 12 5 42% 7 58% Colusa Avenue(W)' Santa Fe/ 14 8 57% 8 57% Berkeley Pk Blvd 1619 Oak View/ Oakview Avenue(E) 7 2 29% 3 43°0 Colusa Circle Oakview Avenue(W)' Santa Fe/ 16 9 56% 9 56%. Berkeley Pk Blvd. Santa Fe Avenue Oak View/ 16 11 69% 11 69% Colusa Ave Oak View/ Santa Fe Avenue Ward Ave 19 8 42% 9 50% Colusa Circle Berkeley Pk/ 2 0.2 10°/" 1 50% Colusa Ave Colusa Ave/ Colusa Circle 1 0 -- 0.4 40% Oak View Ave. Oak View Ave/ Colusa Circle Berkeley Pk. 2 0.4 20% 0.4. 20% Colusa Circle Berkeley Pk/ 1 0 -- 0.6 60"0 Colusa Ave Total 107 51.6 48% 55 Source:Wilbur Smith Associates—May 2007 Notes: (1)Parking was observed on both sides of the street for bordering the project site. For example on Colusa Avenue both t9e north and south sides of Colusa were observed for parking occupancy. In general, the entire study area operates well below 85 percent (practical capacity) during the majority of the day. Occupancy ranges from 10 to 83 percent on select residential streets abutting the proposed project site and are shown to consistently operate at acceptable levels throughout the majority of the day. This indicates that there is significant capacity to accommodate additional vehicles. During the midday, parking was notably observed to operate at a little over 50 percent of capacity during the midday, still leaving sigrtificant capacity for additional vehicles. Wlbl1rSrf;Ttlth • ! C O C 14 T e c Ed Hammonds May 21,2007 Page 5 • PP Parking supplies for the immediate proposed project were observed to include approximately 46 spaces C, which operated at 61 percent of capacity during both the morning and midday hours. Table 2 presents the occupancies observed by street. Table 2 On-Street Parking Supply and Occupancy (Project Site) Morning Midday Street Between Sup. Occup. "/o Occup. Occup. % Occup Colusa Avenue(W)' Santa Fe/ 14 8 57% 8 57% Berkeley Pk Blvd Oakview Avenue(W)' Santa Fe/ 16 9 56% 9 56% Berkeley Pk Blvd. Santa Fe Avenue' Oak View/ 16 11 69% 11 69% Colusa Ave Total 46 28 61% 28 61% Source:Wilbur Smith Associates—May 2007 As Table 2 indicates,parking occupancy around the proposed project site is observed to remain consistent and operate at levels well below practical capacity throughout the day. As such, the immediate project study area has significant capacity to accommodate additional demand for parking. Parking Turnover In all,42 spaces were observed in 60 minute increments and turnover was calculated along the perimeter of the proposed project site between the hours of 7:00 AM and 4:00 PM. The majority of on-street spaces observed along Colusa Avenue and Oakview were exclusively 2-hour unmetered and on-street spaces on Santa Fe Avenue were unlimited not subject to time regulations. Table 3 presents the turnover of on-street spaces along the proposed project site. Table 3 Parking Turnover and Duration Average Average Street Name Between Supply Turnover Duration Colusa Avenue Santa Fe and Colusa Circle 14 4.1 vehicles 1.8 hours Oak View Avenue Santa Fe/Colusa Circle 16 3.3 vehicles 2.2 hours Santa Fe Avenue Colusa Avenue/Oak View 1 16 1.6 vehicles 4.2 hours Source:Wilbur Smith Associates—May 2007 Duration and turnover were averaged over all spaces on each block face, given the fact that spaces were similarly regulated. It was found in areas with 2-hour metered spaces, the average duration (time parked) WiiburSmith A 9 6 " C I A T ! L Ed Hammonds May 21,2007 Page 6 of vehicles were between 1.8 and 2.2 hours indicating that the two-hour time limits on Colusa Avenue were observed. However 2-hour time limits were exceeded on Oak View Avenue. In addition, average duration in unlimited parking spaces on residential street Santa Fe was observed at 4.2 hours. This type of usage is expected as these spaces are not subject to regulation and are most likely used by residents as a form of vehicle storage. Turnover of vehicles along the perimeter of the study site indicated that spaces in some areas were used more efficiently than others. Efficiently used 2-hour limited spaces would typically report an average turnover of at least 4 vehicles over a 9 hour period. Notably, vehicles on Colusa Avenue used parking spaces most efficiently with an observed average rate of 4.1 vehicles over the course of the study period. This is consistent with the observed parking occupancy indicating that vehicles most likely occupied spaces for the part of the observation period and then left spaces vacant for the remainder of the period. On the other hand, turnover for the remaining streets bordering the project site reported low turnover rates. Turnover on Santa Fe Avenue was reported at 1.6 vehicles while turnover for Oak View Avenue was reported at 3.3 vehicles over the 9 hour observation period. The low turnover experienced on Santa Fe Avenue can be attributed to the unlimited nature of these spaces, notably that they go unregulated. Turnover on Oak View Avenue however indicates that time limits are not being observed. Parking Requirements Development projects conducted in Kensington California are subject to providing parking under the Contra Costa County Zoning Code, Title 8 Section 82-16.018. As such, per the zoning code, the proposed project would be required to provide 37 off-street parking spaces, including 27 spaces for the office uses and 10 spaces for the retail uses. No provision of loading spaces would be necessary fcr this project as the estimated square footage of the project would does not meet the minimum square footage requirements for which loading spaces must be provided. A preliminary analysis of existing parking requirements suggests that the amount of parking provided may potentially be lowered to reflect the study area's accessibility to transit, walk-in traffic, and synergy among neighboring land uses. Parking requirements will be discussed more in depth in relation to parking demand in the following section. Assessing Parking Demand Assessing the future parking demand is fundamental to understanding how parking can be most efficiently utilized to meet the needs of existing and future visitors to the proposed project site. Parking demand is dependent on a number of variables including the intensity of demand generated by employees, visitors, shoppers, and residents; the proportion of trips made by automobiles as compared with other (1)parking space for every 250 square feet of retail space and(1)space for every 200 square feet of professional office space(Contra Costa County Zoning Code).Note the requirements for nearby cities: One parizng space per each three hundred square feet of first floor building area and one space per each four hundred square feet of floor area above the first floor level.Professional Offices(Real Estate,Law,CPA,Etc.).One pX*ing space per five hundred square feet of building area.(City of El Cerrito Zoning Code).Commercial floor area:One and a half spaces per each 1,0000 square feet of gross floor area. Office: One and a half spaces per each 1,0000 square feet of gross floor area(City of Berkeley Zoning Code). Wi lburSm Eth A 2 6 8 L 1 A T t 9 Ed Hammonds May 21,2007 Page 7 modes of transportation; the extent of a captive-market environment; and the parking supply available to accommodate demand. It is important to note that parking occupancy levels as reported in the existing conditions section are not necessarily synonymous with parking demand. Parking occupancy is an indicator of how the existing parking supply is utilized. Parking demand indicates how many patrons would like to park at a given location and time if there were sufficient supply. If spaces are not available nearby, people will park at a distance, use alternative modes such as transit/bicycles, conduct business elsewhere, or may forego the trip entirely. Methodology The process to determine the parking demand for the in the proposed project involved several steps. First,. an inventory of the land use types of the project was obtained from the project sponsor (Ed Hammonds). Specific land uses identified by the project sponsor were then each assigned with a set of parking demand parameters. The land uses used for this parking demand analysis included specialty retail and professional office. A peak parking generation rate was first assigned to each land use. This rate represents each use's theoretical demand at its heaviest use time and under the assumption that every patron drove alone to get there; a variety of sources were consulted to arrive at the peak parking demand rates for each land use, including the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) publication Parking Generation, the Urban Land • Institute(ULI)publication Shared Parking. It is important to understand that parking demand generated by individual land uses differs dramatically at different periods of the day, week, and year. Land uses often exhibit peak demand at dramatically different times; for example, retail uses will tend to require the most parking during the weekend, while professional offices generate peak parking demand during the midday weekday when people typically make their appointments and visit these establishments. For a more accurate prediction of parking demand, a peak hour factor adjustment was considered which reduces every land use's peak demand rate to match its real use at a given time. Additional,reductions to the peak rate were made under the assumption that not every trip is made by a single occupancy vehicle (SOV).Notably, this assumption is based on the study area's character, which in this case is urban nature, walkable, and well connected to transit. As such, it is reasonable to expect that a sizable proportion of residents and visitors would use public transit, walls, or bike to access the proposed project. Such mode split data was added to each land use category to reduce the peak parking demand rates. Additional rate reduction factors were included for each land use based on time-of-day demand shifts and captive market trips. Captive market trips are based on the assertion that proximity of uses facilitates walking between activities rather than using a vehicle, thereby reducing the demand for parking. In densely developed horizontal mixed-use environments like that existing in and around Colusa Circle, the • ilbur51't6th eccoeIRrec r Ed Hammonds May 21,2007 Page 8 compatibility of office,retail,and restaurant uses results in a further reduction of the peak rate. To prevent double counting of parking demand, this concept was incorporated into a `shared parking' factor, further reducing the peak rate. Shared Parking As mentioned above, the fact that different land uses experience different peak hours of demand offers the possibility to share parking among nearby land uses. For example a coffee shop/bakery like Semifreddi's le a typical restaurant operates at its peak during the is most busy during the early morning commute, whi evening. As such, the same parking spaces can be shared for the cafe and restaurant since their peaks occur during separate time periods. Another shared parking opportunity is present when corresponding uses are within a walkable or accessible distance of each other, as this encourages people to "park once" and walk between uses, thereby reducing the amount of total demand for parking. Internal trip capture or trip chaining is also common in the evening as visitors run errands on their way home from work. For the study area, it is assumed that shared parking would most likely occur between restaurants in the area and professional offices during the evening or between retail and restaurant uses during the midday. Parking Demand A comparison of the proposed project's parking supply versus the estimated parking demand was performed. It should.-be noted-that the proposed project would provide 25 parking spaces, 13 of which would be off-stre4 and 12 of which would be on-street. Table 4 presents a summary of the project's • parking conditions. Table 4 Summary of Project Parking Conditions Condition P_arking.S.paces Parking Supply'1 16 spaces Existing County Zoning Code Requirement(2) 3 s Surplus/Shortfall -21 spaces Midday Project Parking Demand 22.3 spaces Proposed project Parking Provision 25 spaces Surplus/Shortfall 2.7 spaces Source:Wilbur Smith Associates—May 2007 Notes: (1) Only includes parking supply on the periphery of project site on the side adjacent to the project site. (2) Based on Contra Costa County Zoning Code Requirements The proposed project study site currently provides approximately a total of 16 on-street parking spaces. Notably, the Contra Costa County Zoning Code requires 37 off-street spaces for the proposed project WilburSmth A 6 L 0 C I AT 1 f. Ed Hammonds May 21,2007 Page 9 • uses, which if compared to the existing supply would result in a deficit of 21 spaces. However, the parking demand generated by the proposed project would be 22.3 parking spaces. This parking demand estimate was determined through an analysis of the existing utilization information coupled with current land use data, taking into account the percentage of people likely to walk, take transit, or bike to the site, and ability to share parking between land uses. Overall, the neighborhood in which proposed project is located is highly conducive to walking, well connected to transit, and offers great opportunity to share parking among adjacent land uses. As such, the parking demand for the proposed uses was considered in light of these factors and reduced accordingly. Notably, given the neighborhood's walkable nature it is anticipated that approximately 5 percent of people would walk to the retail and restaurant uses. Additionally,based on the existing bus connections provided in the vicinity of the site,it is estimated that about 3 percent of visitors would use transit to make visits to professional offices, patronize retail shops. Lastly, it is expected that about 20 percent of trips would take advantage of the study area's mixed-use character to park once and conduct multiple errands, such as have lunch and then stop at the adjoining retail shops or drop off dry-cleaning and._then-attend-an appointment at a professional_office. Based on these reduction factors, it was determined that the proposed project's provision of 25 spaces would be adequate td serve the parking demands of the project. Travel Demand Travel demand refers to the new vehicle, transit, and pedestrian traffic that would be generated by the proposed project. The following provides an estimate of the travel demand that would be generated by the retail and office components of the proposed project plus the parking demand. The travel demand and parking demand estimates were based on information obtained by the project sponsor and the ITE publication Trip Generation. Trip Generation The amount of traffic generated by the proposed project was estimated using the ITE Trip Generation handbook. Table 5 presents the weekday daily and PM vehicle trips that would be generated by the proposed project. The Proposed project would generate approximately 287 vehicle trips (inbound and outbound)on a weekday daily basis and 37 vehicle trips during the weekday PM peak hour. Table 5 Vehicle Trip Generation—Weekday Daily and PM Peak Hour PM Peak Land Use Type Size Daily Trips HourTrips Office 5,341 sq. ft.' 140 24 Retail 2552 sq. ft' 147 13 Total 7.893 sq.ft 287 I 37 Source:Wilbur Smith Associates—May 2006,ITE Trip Generation Note: 1 Note that trip generation is based on the net leasable square area of the proposed land uses. WflburSmith •ecoei �s [ s Ed Hammonds May 21,2007 Page 10 • Traffic Impacts In general, only about 8 percent of the additional trips generated by the project would occur during the PM peak hour. This increase in trips would result in minor changes to traffic operations in the Colusa Circle intersection. It should be noted that it is not likely nor expected that 100 percent of these trips would need to access the site through the Colusa Circle intersection and therefore the majority of trips would be more or less evenly distributed to surrounding streets including Berkeley Park Boulevard, Oak View Avenue, and Colusa Avenue. Diagonal Parking —Santa Fe Avenue As proposed, Santa Fe Avenue would offer two-way traffic flow, with parallel parking on the west side and 40 degree angled parking on the east side. With this arrangement, approximately 27 feet would be available for two travel lanes, after allowing 18 feet and four and half inches for parallel parking spaces. The proposed angled parking layout would require that some backing maneuvers into the travel lane. However the proposed dimensions (14 feet and three and one half inches) for the travel lane adjacent to the proposed angled parking would provide enough space for vehicles traveling northbound to adequately pull in and out of said parking-spaces without significantly impacting vehicles occupying the travel lane. The previous report conducted for this proposed project in 1983 analyzed the feasibility of providing bU degree diagonal parking on.Santa Fe Avenue. At that time it was determined that"if[60 degree] diagonal parking is installed and west side parking maintained, the northbound lane should be at 15 feet wide (minimum), the southbound lane should be 14 feet wide, and a 9 foot west side curb parking lane should be provided." However, the revised project, proposes that 40 degree angled parking be provided instead of the 60 degree parking previously planned. Accordingly,the feasibility of providing 40 degree angled parking on Santa Fe was analyzed according to current industry standards. The Urban Land Institute's publication, The Dimensions of Parking, states that for 45 degree angled parking, the aisle width shall be a minimum of 12 feet 8 inches with a length of 17 feet 8 inches. As previously established, the proposed angle of parking for Santa Fe Avenue is 40 degrees, less than the typical standard. Based on this smaller angle, the proposed parking stalls are not anticipated to project as far into the travel lane as would be expected under 45 degree conditions. Furthermore, industry standards indicate that under conditions where the street operates at a level of service C, the recommended module width is 50.58 feet. As such,the proposed length of the 40 degree angled parking is 18 feet and four and one half inches while the travel lane is proposed at a width of 14 feet three and one half inches, for a total of 32 feet and 8 inches.Based on the industry parking stall length standard of.50.5.8 feet and the proposed dimensions of the diagonal parking, the resulting width of the parking lane and travel lane combined should be 32.13 feet. As such the proposed dimensions for the northbound travel lane would adequately meet these standards. • Wiibul-Smith A 2 L 0 C I A T I 9 Ed Hammonds May 21,2007 Page 1] • With respect to parallel parking on the west side of Santa Fe Avenue,the proposed width of 8 feet I inch is less than the parking industry standards recommended minimum of 8 feet 6 inches to 8 feet 9 inches parking spaces widths for low to moderate turnover visitors spaces. As such, the project sponsor should consider increasing the space allocated for parallel parking on Santa Fe Avenue by reducing the width of the adjacent southbound travel lane. It should be noted that typical travel lane widths vary from 10 to 12 _ feet. As such, the proposed dimensions of 12 feet 11 inches for the southbound travel lane could be decreased and would still meet industry standards. Santa Fe Avenue is a low traffic street which would be able to adequately accommodate traveling southbound vehicles on Santa Fe Avenue based on the changes to lane widths discussed above. Oak View Avenue The project also proposes to include 60 degree angled parking along the north side of Oak View Avenue. According to the Parking Consultar_ls-Council, recommended minimum parking stall widths for moderate to high-turnover visitor parking, community retail, or medical visitors are 8'9"to 9'0"feet wide by 19'0"' feet long for 60 degree angled parking. As such, the proposed parking dimensions for angled parking on "menta- F,Sv une e,would fulfill these requirements. Similarly to the parking proposed for Santa Fe Avenu , ang ed parking on Oak View Avenue would also require maneuvering into the travel lane but would be adequately accommodated by the proposed dimensions of 14 feet 8 inches which would allow for safe and efficient flow of traffic on Oak View Avenue. For added safety precautions, the project sponsor may wish to include some special pavement or signage • as a cautionary notice alert traveling motorists that vehicles will be pulling out of diagonal spaces and into the traveling lane. Summary and Conclusions In general, existing conditions data indicate that the study area as a whole is well equipped to accommodate the additional parking demand expected to be generated by the proposed project.Parking in the immediate proposed project study site operates well below practical capacity (85 percent) during both the morning and midday peak hours. The parking area surrounding the proposed project Site also operates similarly and would be able to accommodate additional parking demand. Parking demand for the area and its proposed project have been reduced to account for the area's characteristics including its connectivity to transit, walkable nature, mixed-use character, and ability to share parking. As such, the resulting demand is a reflection of these factors and is expected to be met by the parking supply that will be provided as part of the proposed project. The proposed dimensions to accommodate 40 degree angled parking on Santa Fe Avenue should be reviewed more closely to ensure that parallel parking is provided at appropriate dimensions that are consistent with industry standards. The proposed right of way makes allowances for changes to the dimensions of the southbound travel lane which would help accommodate this need. The 60 degree angled parking on Oak View Avenue as proposed by changes to the existing right of way would be • WilburSmith ASS CC I AT IS Ed Hammonds May 21,2007 Page 12 • adequately accommodated by the proposed changes to the existing n'bh t of way and is not expected to pose vehicular conflicts or significantly impact circulation on Oak View Avenue. Yours sincerely, William E. Hurrell,P.E. Regional Vice President WEH/etc Enclose: Figure I • WilburSmith •t L 0 C I h T ! L I .a. .c :t i I s 3 t nl ." dl • s r y _ kw i , vt� _t , . i' n' 1. 44�YIy , t ` �i I� yr iL. r qt J rye_ j5 1. AV Joe , • x � k a y w a n p tS ' r , x 4C I l , �r ip ,+ I s .i ePLANWE ftnnamws N WiIbuIArES ilbur gyres July 3,2007 Ed Hammonds 384 Colusa Circle Kensington, CA 94707 Subject: Triangle Building Colusa Avenue Dear Mr. Hammonds, Per your request we have reviewed the letter dated June 14, 2007 which was prepared by the Contra Costa County Public Works Department in response to their review of the parking study we prepared for your project at located at 370 Colusa Avenue in Kensington. Our responses to the comments in the letter are as follows: • The opening paragraphs of the letter discuss the appropriateness of the use of diagonal parking in the study area. As noted in the letter the planning and project approval process conducted in 1983 envisioned diagonal parking as an appropriate parking mitigation. The streets where the diagonal parking is proposed are relatively low volume streets with low traffic speeds. The diagonal parking will act as a further traffic calming feature reinforcing the pedestrian oriented nature of the area. • Comment 1'—The parking on the west side of Santa Fe Avenue is not included in the count of parking spaces that would be provided by the project. The 25 spaces to be provided include 13 new off-street spaces and 12 new diagonal on-street spaces, 7 of which are on the east side of Santa Fe Avenue and 5 of which would be on Oak View Avenue. • Comment 2—The parking study used the procedures and methodology presented in the publication"Shared Parking,2nd Edition"which was produced by the Urban Land Institute. This document is nationally recognized in the parking and transportation industry as the most appropriate method for estimated parking requirements in a mixed use environment. It also provide for adjustments to reflect the degree to which an area has urban characteristics of transit and pedestrian use. While the Contra Costa County code may be appropriate for a suburban setting,it does not recognize that the amount of parking needed for a given land use can vary dramatically with the amount of urbanization and density that characterizes an area. Kensington is more densely developed and pedestrian oriented than the majority of the areas encompassed by Contra Costa County. It is not practical to expect developments in this area to comply with suburban parking standards. M201 Mission Street, Suite 1450 San Francisco, California 94105 415.495.6201 f415.495.5305 www.WilburSmith.com Hammonds,Ed July 3,2007 Page 2 • Comment 3—As noted in Comment 1 above parking on the west side of Santa Fe Avenue was not part of the 25 new spaces to be provided by the project. The parking survey that was conducted suggests that in general there is a surplus of available parking in the area today. If the parking on the west side of Santa Fe Avenue were to be excluded from the survey the inventory of parking in the immediate area of the project site would be reduced by 10 spaces. The number of cars parked during the morning and midday periods would be reduced by seven if these spaces were excluded from the count. Table 2 of the report shows the on-street parking supply in the immediate vicinity of the project. If the ten spaces were removed,this would reduce the supply to total of 36 spaces. The number of vehicles parked would decrease to 21, and the occupancy observed would also decrease to 58%. It is very unlikely that the spaces on the west side of Santa Fe Avenue would be restricted to residential use only by the City of El Cerrito. This would require a petition of the residents in that block and then a decision by the city to impose residential permit parking. The current level of use of the parking does not justify such an action. If,however,the parking were to be restricted, there would still remain an amble supply of available parking in the area. If the proposed diagonal parking on the east side of Santa Fe Avenue was to be eliminated and returned to parallel parking the number of new parking spaces being provided by the project would be reduce by 7 to a total of 18. • Comment 4 and Recommended Mitigation-Below is an excerpt from County Code.82-16.012 for 40 degree angled parking. It is not clear this information how the recommended width of 33.11 feet was calculated. Regardless,the proposed project site plan shows a dimension of 32.75 . feet,so that the difference between what is being proposed and the County's recommendation is only 0.36 feet or about 4.3 inches. _............... of ,Parking "Stall (Curb !Stall Driveway (Degrees.Width [Length Depth !Width X40 1:9 ft. 0 in. '14 ft. 0 in. 19 ft. 2 in. 12 ft. 0 in. WilburSmith •S S C C 1 4 T ! i Hammonds,Ed July 3,2007 Page 3 In summa in c onsidennb this project it is unportant to recognize the special characteristics of the project area. The area has a significant parking surplus, and the amount of development that has occurred and is likely to occur appears to be much less than that envisioned in 1983. It is not practical or desirable to attempt to satisfy County code parking requirements in this area.The analysis prepared by WSA suggests the provision of an amount of parking that will meet the needs of the project and ensure that the area will continue to have adequate parking. Yours sincerely, William E. Hurrell, P.E. Regional Vice President N WflburSmith A 8 5 0 C I R T ! [ LETTERS IN SUPPORT OF PROJECT r7[ c po 250.4l{t iv-,7 treet. Sort, o,4 Herkele CA 4.J70? .to t l Ux. 'A' To Whom It May Concern: We. Carole and uric Sartenaer, owners of The Phoenix Pastificio and original owners of Semifreddi's Bakery. would like to say in this letter that we have known lid Hammonds since February of 1984 when we signed the original lease for Semifreddi"s on the Colusa Circle. He was. from the very be�g>inning. a true gentleman and honorable person. He gave us 3 months free rent which lie extended two more months as well as contributing to our remodeling by paying for the floor and water heater wv installed totaling $2500.00. No other landlord has ever done anything like this. When we sold • Sernifreddi"s in 1987. he helped the transition to the no tt owners go without a hitch. All the time we were `'residents" at Colusa Circle the felt he alw°ays had the best interests of the whole coniniunity in mind. Over the years v e have had other dealings and encs tinteis with him and our fee Iings%impressions of him have never wavered. lie is at once fair. honorable. thoughtful and hind. The most recent wav in which our paths grossed was when we heeded to find a new home quickly for our Pristificio. He gave freely and generously of his time to help us in any way he could. Aside from just general advice and support, he actually hooked us up with the owners of Cafe Zeste and facilitated our moving here t+•ith them to share a kitchen so that we would not have to miss any production time or lose any, of our wholesale or retail business: all this he did simply out of friendship. These dualities in a person are rare and hard to find in anyone. let alone a commercial landlordrrealtor. We are fiamiliar with his latest project at Colusa Circle and are veru impressed with it as tee. would he Leith any project he was behind. ' Sincerelv. Carole and Eric Sartenaer • August 13, 2007 To whom it may concern, I am writing this letter regarding Ed Hammond's plans to develop the Colusa Circle area. I was a resident of Kensington from 1987 to 1995. 1 met Ed Hammond in 1992 when my wife, Dr. Mindy Werner-Crohn, and I leased a suite of offices from Mr. Hammonds at 376 Colusa. We worked together with him to plan the renovation of the offices, and I have had a psychotherapy practice in the offices for the last fifteen years. Last year our family re-located out of the Bay Area, so I am currently in the process of ending my practice in the East Bay. Even though I do not intend to have any further business dealings with Mr. Hammonds, I felt that Contra Costa planning agencies might find the quality of my dealings with him relevant to their decisions regarding his proposed development. My experience with Mr. Hammonds has been consistently positive. He was always helpful and supportive during the extensive planning and execution of the renovations to our suite. We found him to be an ethical, flexible, and pleasant person to work with. Whenever issues arose with other tenants, it was my impression that he was consistently fair and reasonable, and that his goal was always to find solutions to problems that were mutually beneficial. Perhaps what has impressed me most about Mr. Hammonds has been his long standing commitment to • the Colusa Circle area. His ability to nurture stable and long-lasting professional relationships, his genuine concern for the aesthetics of the area, his support of public art, and his desire to create spaces that enhance a sense of community seem, to me, to be increasingly rare traits in our highly commercialized world where quick profit takes precedence over lasting and more humane values. Even the most positive changes are inherently stressful. Any significant project inevitably disturbs those comfortable with the status quo. But nothing ever really remains the same. While other properties in the Kensington Circle area have been left to decay over many years, Mr. Hammond's efforts to renew and enrich the local community should be supported. Sincerely, Joel Crohn, Ph.D. 376 Colusa Ave., Suite 2 Kensington, CA 94707 (415)456-1166 • r 1. i � " M c NFW CONSTRUCT ION 370 Colusa looking towarclColusa Circle t f yq.l 1 py cdYp 'r'-C•' . t i t. 4 � p BEFORE CONSTRUCT ION • ALEX KORN AIA, ARCHITECT; 610 ARLINGTON AVE, BERKELEY, CA, 510-526-7910 BEFORE YOU SIGNA PETITION, PLEASE READ THIS • DETAILS ABOUT THE PRO OSED DEVELOPMENTS I'm writing this letter to correct certain misconceptions about the proposed developments on Colusa Circle. From the misprints in the July/August issue of the KENSINGTON OUTLOOK to the misinformation being circulated by those opposed to the development projects,there needs to be a clear understanding of what is actually being proposed. There are three development plan applications currently under submission to Contra Costa Countyon Colusa Circle,two of which have been presented before the Kensington Municipal Advisory Council (KMAC). The two proposals for development on Colusa Circle that have been reviewed by KMAC are on distinct paths and each needs to be considered on its own individual merits. The two development applications: (DP 03 3047) as submitted by the undersigned, Ed Hammonds(architect Alex Korn) and application(DP 06 3026) submitted by Carol Chisholm (architect Andrew Woolman). HAMMONDS' PLAN (DP 03 3047) My development plan modification was submitted to the County in 2003 and proposes to reduce the scope of the plan approved in 1983. The modification affects the triangular shaped block, the even numbered storefronts from 370—388 Colusa Ave., directly to the west of the parcels owned by Narsai David(for reference the former"Porto Brasil"site). My application seeks permission to build a two story 1,629 square foot addition to the 384-88 Colusa building and a new 8,360 square foot structure at 370 Colusa Circle. The new three story structure at 370 Colusa Avenue is in context with its surroundings, positioned directly • across the street from an existing four story building. 370 Colusa Avenue, with its slender profile, is at the point where Santa Fe and Colusa Avenue converge. Existing two-story buildings at 384-88 Colusa and 372-80 Colusa are to remain intact. The plan does involve the demolition of the fire damaged structure at 1537 Oak View Avenue and the existing auto repair garage at 370 Colusa plus the removal of several trees. Destruction of the 1537 Oak View office and trees is necessary to provide off-street parking for the new construction. Thirteen(13)new off-street parking spaces together with twelve(12)new on-street spaces created by the diagonal parking on Oak View and Santa Fe Ave., add a total of twenty-five(25)new parking spaces. My plan has always included planting new trees and installing street lights on all sides of the triangle parcel, a new garden area, a large patio and re-paving 690 linear feet of sidewalk. These elements augmented with public art will create a more pedestrian-friendly environment and a sense of place During the course of the KMAC meetings, I agreed to totally change the fagade of the addition to 384-88 Colusa, re-design the entire 370 Colusa building setting back the third story on both Colusa and Santa Fe,and change the angle of the diagonal parking to mitigate Public Work concerns. Prior to my last meeting with KMAC, I agreed to provide a Traffic& Parking Study to assess the possible impact of the new construction. In addition to the scope defined by KMAC, I contracted with Wilbur Smith and Associates,the traffic engineers,to supplement their report with two additional studies. One to assess the capacity of Santa Fe Ave. to accommodate diagonal parking and the other to assess the current availability of on-street parking in the Colusa Circle area. The Wilbur Smith Traffic& Parking Study dated May 24,2007 affirmed that the new parking created for my development was more than adequate.The study also concluded that there was usually 40%of the on-street parking available during most hours of a normal business day. After six meetings with KMAC, I finally received their recommendation for approval on a 4-1 vote on May • 29, 2007. The next step is an August hearing before the Contra Costa County Planning Commission. Under the most optimistic scenario and even with expeditious County approvals, construction will not commence until early 2008 and the project will not be ready for occupancy until 2009. • CAROL CHISHOLM'S PLAN (DP 063026) Carol Chisholm's application concerns the 401 Colusa site and was submitted to the County in 2006. Her application seeks a General Plan Amendment to remove her parcel from the Planned Development and regain its former R-B zoning status. She is applying to build ground floor retail and three residential condominiums at 401 Colusa Ave., at present a vacant lot: Her development is a substantial reduction in Phase II of the original Development Plan which entailed building a two level 33 car parking structure at 411 Colusa and a three story retail/restaurant building on the 401 site. That plan was eventually scrapped. The house at 411 Colusa Ave. was rebuilt, rather than demolished to make way for the parking structure. By converting the bulk of 401 Colusa Avenue to residential usage,the parking requirements are significantly reduced. Carol's architect, Andrew Woolman, frustrated by the arduous KMAC review process, called for a vote after their third KMAC appearance in April 2007 and the application was summarily rejected on a 4-0 vote. The objections expressed by KMAC members centered on the three story height of the building, which in turn raised concerns about `view' impacts. The other objection concerned the adequacy of off-street parking. What impact the KMAC vote will have on the County is unknown. NARSAI DAVID'S PLAN (DP 07 3041) Mr. David's application was submitted to.the County on June 5, 2007 and is scheduled to be presented before the Kensington Municipal Advisory Council (KMAC)for the first time on July 31, 2007. Mr. David's application is for an expansion and change in use of his property at 385 Colusa Ave./350 Berkeley Park Blvd.. Since his application is not yet deemed complete by the County(as of June 29, 2007), all that can be said at • this point is that his application is long overdue and eagerly anticipated. Hopefully, Mr. David's plan is sensitive to the Colusa Circle neighborhood and serves as a positive step to rid the area of a major eyesore and create a more attractive retail environment for everyone. Change is disruptive and for some it may be frightening,yet all things must change and evolve to stay viable. Let us all work collaboratively to ensure that Colusa Circle evolves in a way that we can all be proud of and feel good about. A place that is safe, pedestrian-friendly and relevant for those living in the immediate neighborhood. 1 invite you to join me in bringing this vision to fruition. Edward Y. Hammonds 384 Colusa Circle Kensington, CA 94707 (510) 559-1501 (off ice) edhammonds(r�nol.com What I Envision for Colusa Circle Now that KMAC has recommended approval of my development plan modification(DP 03 3047)at the meeting on May 29, 2007, I can begin to articulate how I envision making Colusa Circle more relevant and viable for the immediate neighbors. I intend to promote a more pedestrian-friendly environment, one in which neighbors will come, mingle and spend a part of their day. I will bring new retailers to which locals will want to walk rather than drive across town to find elsewhere. The first generation of shops were service oriented and patrons tended to stop,drop-off or pick-up,and go. I want to give people a reason to linger. Angel Court (sans mural) is being restored with more plants and new benches. The next phase of merchants has begun with the recent'opening of the Alchemy Skin Spa at 380 Colusa and the relocation of the Hendrickson Chiropractic Clinic to 388 Colusa Circle. These stores were completely renovated and serve as show pieces of what is to come. Francesca Cavanaugh moved her business from Walnut Square and Tom Hendrickson was practicing quietly just off the Circle for 20 years on Berkeley Park Blvd. As a side note, I sold the house at 411 Colusa to Marianne Beacham, a certified muscular therapist, who has moved her home business to the Circle after 10 years at El Cerrito Plaza. These three new businesses are emblematic of the future of the Circle as a center for health and healing. That theme will be kept in mind when prospecting for a business for the new storefront at 382 Colusa Circle. • Semifreddi's is considering a relocation into about 800 square feet in the new building at 370 Colusa Circle (adjacent to their current shop) and the remaining one or two storefronts at 370 Colusa will be leased to businesses that would be of interest to the over 60's crowd (which is a fast growing demographic). The upper floor offices will be leased to psychotherapists, educational consultants and other business professionals, much the same as the businesses on the second floors of 376 and 384 Colusa. I plan to add more amenities such as new streetlights and new trees on all three sides of the triangle parcel bounded by Colusa, Oak View and Santa Fe, a garden/fountain area and a new mural to help create a sense of place. There is the additional challenge of redoing 690 linear feet of sidewalk and finding a way for all this to pencil out. After KMAC,there are still many hurdles to overcome and under the most optimistic scenario completion is not slated until 2009. Considering the modest nature of the new buildings—an infill addition to the existing building at 384-88 and a new structure at 370 Colusa—it is just a beginning. Until the other commercial properties on the Circle are upgraded, Colusa will remain a work'in progress and will not come full circle. I am waiting with anticipation to see what the largest landowner on the Circle, Narsai David, has in mind for his properties. I look forward to working cooperatively with Carol Chisholm and Narsai to align our visions and create a synergy (the sum being greater than the parts)that will benefit everyone. To: Contra Costa County Zoning Administrator c/o Mr. Mike Henn, AIC, Planner Community Development Department County Administration Building 651 Pine Street, 4th Floor,North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 RE: DP 03-3047 Colusa Circle Development Plan Modification 370-388 Colusa Ave. Kensington, CA 94707 The undersigned merchants and business professionals of Colusa Circle and nearby residents support the above captioned development plan application. We believe that it is a positive step in eliminating blight in the area. The planned improvements will greatly enhance the neighborhood commercial area and upgrade the quality of life for nearby residents. We also assert that there is ample on-street parking in the Colusa Circle commercial area and that the availability of parking is an asset of Colusa Circle. C. << - ,- f Signa Print Name Address Date 2 ��sTo (�L ��I Signature Print Name / � IjIv--)7 Address Date Signature Print Name ay' _1T Address Date 4 /, rC,4 i7.�*�r� a' f Signature J Print Name Address Date . Signature Print Name z 123/ ��1 1 Ile_ lx> L1z3�� To: Contra Costa County Zoning Administrator c/o Mr. Mike Henn, AIC, Planner Community Development Department County Administration Building • 651 Pine Street, 4`h Floor, North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 RE: DP 03-3047 Colusa Circle Development Plan Modification 370-388 Colusa Ave. Kensington, CA 94707 The undersigned merchants and business professionals of Colusa Circle and nearby residents support the above captioned development plan application. We believe that it is a positive step in eliminating blight in the area. The planned improvements will greatly enhance the neighborhood commercial area and upgrade the quality of life for nearby residents. We also assert that there is ample on-street parking in the Colusa Circle commercial area and that the availability of parking is an asset of Colusa Circle. Si afore 77 1 Print Name Address Date 2 &t � L � 0 � Signature Print Name ,-L&(W 0 2�I Orl LI 111 4 N �� p u D L/ Address I I" S. v--I Date 3 C-I a \ Signature - Print Name -- C A- c Address Date PL C rg- q.5_30 Signature _0 r- Print Name Address Date 5 L Signature Print Name v�j z3 0 ,� To: Contra Costa County Zoning Administrator c/o Mr. Mike Henn, AIC, Planner Community Development Department County Administration Building • 651 Pine Street, 4"' Floor,North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 RE: DP 03-3047 Colusa Circle Development Plan Modification 370-388 Colusa Ave. Kensington, CA 94707 The undersigned merchants and business professionals of Colusa Circle and nearby residents support the above captioned development plan application. We believe that it is a positive step in eliminating blight in the area. The planned improvements will greatly enhance the neighborhood commercial area and upgrade the quality of life for nearby residents. We also assert that there is ample on-street parking in the Colusa Circle commercial area and that the availability of parking is an asset of Colusa Circle. f Signature" Print Name �..tv I..\( r. ,, Address Date " _. _ • Sign ature -- "� r Print Name -:� T:"� , , Address Date .? 31 xz '`� �J fit.07 vl L-9 f o✓5 e Si =nature Print Name Address Date (� ff 'ignature iPrint Name Address Date 5 .J t-A U n �i 1 C- (1.1'"�^� l".�'iJ•}� I� C��L- . Signature (j I1 r3,., 0L Print Name To: Contra Costa County Zoning Administrator c/o Mr. Mike Henn, AIC, Planner Community Development Department County Administration Building • 651 Pine Street, 4`h Floor,North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 RE: DP 03-3047 Colusa Circle Development Plan Modification 370-388 Colusa Ave. Kensington, CA 94707 The undersigned merchants and business professionals of Colusa Circle and nearby residents support the above captioned development plan application. We believe that it is a positive step in eliminating blight in the area. The planned improvements will greatly enhance the neighborhood commercial area and upgrade the quality of life for nearby residents. We also assert that there is ample on-street parking in the Colusa Circle commercial area and that the availability of parking is an asset of Colusa Circle. c' Signature Print Name Address Date 2 )UW/L,-A,' Signature Print Name Address Date - i Si n tur rint Name Address Date Signature Print Name 1 ,• LAJ Addrs Date Signature Print Name To: Contra Costa County Zoning Administrator c/o Mr. Mike Henn, AIC, Planner Community Development Department County Administration Building 651 Pine Street, 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 RE: DP 03-3047 Colusa Circle Development Plan Modification 370-388 Colusa Ave. Kensington, CA 94707 The undersigned merchants and business professionals of Colusa Circle and nearby residents support the above captioned development plan application. We believe that it is a positive step in eliminating blight in the area. The planned improvements will greatly enhance the neighborhood commercial area and upgrade the quality of life for nearby residents. We also assert that there is ample on-street parking in the Colusa Circle commercial area and that the availability of parking is an asset of Colusa Circle. 1 u�4. we, L-Yj _P r Si ature Print Name Address Date 2 ti� /tl� �'�f/�ca�l')u, •, Signature Print Name Address Date Signature Print Name G• Address 24,Date 4 Signature Print Name 17) Address Date 1114 1 6/2-2/o -7 t Si naure • 7 A 4 tw Print Name To: Contra Costa County Zoning Administrator c/o Mr. Mike Henn, AIC, Planner Community Development Department County Administration Building 651 Pine Street, 4"' Floor, North Wing • Martinez, CA 94553-0095 RC: DP 03-3047 Colusa Circle Development Plan Modification 370-388 Colusa Ave. Kensington, CA 94707 The undersigned merchants and business professionals of Colusa Circle and nearby residents support the above captioned development plan application. We believe that it is a positive step in eliminating blight in the area. The planned improvements will greatly enhance the neighborhood commercial area and upgrade the quality of life for nearby residents. We also assert that there is ample on-street parking in the Colusa Circle commercial area and that the availability of parking is an asset of Colusa Circle. 1 Signature Print Name Address Date 2 Signature Print Name D Address Date Si mature Print Name Address Date 4 Signature Print Name Address Date Signature Print Name �/ZZfc� To: Contra Costa County Zoning Administrator c/o Mr. Mike Henn, AIC, Planner Community Development Department County Administration Building 651 Pine Street, 4'h Floor, North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 RE: DP 03-3047 Colusa Circle Development Plan Modification 370-388 Colusa Ave. Kensington, CA 94707 The undersigned merchants and business professionals of Colusa Circle and nearby residents support the above captioned development plan application. We believe that it is a positive step in eliminating blight in the area. The planned improvements will greatly enhance the neighborhood commercial area and upgrade the quality of life for nearby residents. We also assert that there is ample on-street parking in the Colusa Circle commercial area and that the availability of parking is an asset of Colusa Circle. Signaturint Name c Address Date 2 "'4'(Ix b, 12 '67 (Y' OA '(f • Si nature Print Name Addre Date 3 C z, i LSC Signature Print Name Address Date 4 Signature Print Name Address Date - 0 �. n Signature Print Name T To: Contra Costa County Zoning Administrator c/o Mr. Mike Henn, AIC, Planner Community Development Department County Administration Building 651 Pine Street, 4"' Floor, North Wing Martinez,CA 94553-0095 RE: DP 03-3047 Colusa Circle Development Plan Modification 370-388 Colusa Ave. Kensington, CA 94707 The undersigned merchants and business professionals of Colusa Circle and nearby residents support the above captioned development plan application. We believe that it is a positive step in eliminating blight in the area. The planned improvements will greatly enhance the neighborhood commercial area and upgrade the quality of life for nearby residents. We also assert that there is ample on-street parking in the Colusa Circle commercial area and that the availability of parking is an asset of Colusa Circle. Si nature Print Name Address Date 2 • Si nature Print Name _ 15 61, (4 Address Date Signature Print Name Address Date AU �� 1 (. V ► nature Print Name /0 ':7 Address Date Co C► De Cj Gam; Signature Print Name y z. K, C�_ �. n.� 2 �, 07 To: Contra Costa County Zoning Administrator c/o Mr. Mike Henn, AIC, Planner Community Development Department County Administration Building • 651 Pine Street, 4"' Floor, North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 RE: DP 03-3047 Colusa Circle Development Plan Modification 370-388 Colusa Ave. Kensington, CA 94707 The undersigned merchants and business professionals of Colusa Circle and nearby residents support the above captioned development plan application. We believe that it is a positive step in eliminating blight in the area. The planned improvements will greatly enhance the neighborhood commercial area and upgrade the quality of life for nearby residents. We also assert that there is ample on-street parking in the Colusa Circle commercial area and that the availability of parking is an asset of Colusa Circle. S G/�X? Si L L-GK611641.-,r.-ti= ature S alv6 S;-L_ -2t. Print Name K&v&1,vz,P A "I U-70 7 Z'1'2_i/,2 av Address Date 2 - • Signature Print Name Address Date k o d Si nature Print Name Ad ress Date Si nature Print Name Address Date CA to Signature Print Name r l 1 11 0� To: Contra Costa County Zoning Administrator c/o Mr. Mike Henn, AIC, Planner Community Development Department County Administration Building 651 Pine Street, 4'h Floor, North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 RE: DP 03-3047 Colusa Circle Development Plan Modification 370-388 Colusa Ave. Kensington, CA 94707 The undersigned merchants and business professionals of Colusa Circle and nearby residents support the above captioned development plan application. We believe that it is a positive step in eliminating blight in the area. The planned improvements will greatly enhance the neighborhood commercial area and upgrade the quality of life for nearby residents. We also assert that there is ample on-street parking in the Colusa Circle commercial area and that the availability of parking is an asset of Colusa Circle. Si nature Print Name Address Date • Signature Print Name zz Address Date 3 f,( c Signature Print Name qo k STv�,�7- qq7o 3 Address Date 2 417 x 7DCI.'-'XKC'- S7—C_1N1qU-7 Signature Print Name c)6 3� � t %'�l� ��'� �6 7 Address Date 5 // j/ _ Signature Print Name v 7 38 � �v�.+as•4 ova • (o�'�'� Oyu s •.3 G 7—z�.J , C.� f� To: Contra Costa County Zoning Administrator c/o Mr. Mike Henn, AIC, Planner Community Development Department County Administration Building 651 Pine Street, 4"' }door, North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 1Z E: DP 03-3047 Colusa Circle Development Plan Modification 370-388 Colusa Ave. Kensington, CA 94707 The undersigned merchants and business professionals of Colusa Circle and nearby residents support the ab( captioned development plan application. We believe that it is a positive step in eliminating blight in the area The planned improvements will greatly enhance the neighborhood commercial area and upgrade the quality life for nearby residents. We also assert that there is ample on-street parking in the Colusa Circle commerch area and that the availability of parking is an asset of Colusa Circle. Signature Print Name Address Date z172F • Signature Print Name Address Date 3 00V 6) Si na ure Print Name (7 7 Z,00-7 Address Date 4 Vi,I L/?. � (�j� l�� !o j2712-oo'7 Si >nature Print Name Address Date LL C_tk,1f3eo,) Signature Print Name L A/ reA fc To: Contra Costa County Zoning Administrator c/o Mr. Mike Henn, A1C, Planner Community Development Department County Administration Building 651 Pine Street, 411 1 Floor, North Wing • Martinez, CA 94553-0095 R : DP 03-3047 Colusa Circle Development Plan Modification 370-388 Colusa Ave. Kensington, CA 94707 The undersigned merchants and business professionals of Colusa Circle and nearby residents Support the abs captioned development plan application. We believe that it is a positive step in eliminating blight in the are, The planned improvements will greatly enhance the neighborhood commercial area and upgrade the quality life for nearby residents. We also assert that there is ample on-street parking in the Colusa Circle commerci; area and that the availability of parking is an asset of Colusa Circle. Signature Print Name ltw � Address Date 2 • Si nature Print Name _,V4 t✓o�a S�� I��I 0 Address Date in'/ .. IPlo�-,evi k,6 i nature Print Name I �_U 1 /� Address Date 4 ---- 1- 7 �lJ s ti Si nature Print Name Cl/ ddress Date 5 Si inature Print Name , To: Contra Costa County Zoning Administrator c/o Mr. Mike Henn, AIC, Planner Community Development Department County Administration Building 651 Pine Street, 4`h Floor, North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 RE: DP 03-3047 Colusa Circle Development Plan Modification 370-388 Colusa Ave. Kensington, CA 94707 The undersigned merchants and business professionals of Colusa Circle and nearby residents support the above captioned development plan application. We believe that it is a positive step in eliminating blight in the area. The planned improvements will greatly enhance the neighborhood commercial area and upgrade the quality of life for nearby residents. We also assert that there is ample on-street parking in the Colusa Circle commercial area and that the availability of parking is an asset of Colusa Circle. 1 Signature Print Name / SSD 0I, J1e6) Address Date 2 / SED 0a 15-- �I Soh �\ 7D1 Signature Print Name 4v'� rV'"xe_G q1, Address Date 3 ISTD © q 0-7 Si 7 e Print Name SC.) LA s 31Colu 5.. yL Date 6 �/ 4 Si =nature y r �, 0(�?z Print Name Address / l = Berri¢o q�wS Date 5 jasoo 1 Signafure Print Name To: 'Contra Costa County Zoning Administrator c/o Mr. Mike Henn, AIC, Planner Community Development Department County Administration Building 6.51 Pine Street, 4"' floor, North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 RE: DP 03-3047 Colusa Circle Development Plan Modification 370-388 Colusa Ave. Kensington, CA 94707 The undersigned merchants and business professionals of Colusa Circle and nearby residents support the above captioned development plan application. We believe that it is a positive step in eliminating blight in the area. The planned improvements will greatly enhance the neighborhood commercial area and upgrade the quality of life for nearby residents. We also assert that there is ample on-street parking in the Colusa Circle commercial area and that the availability of parking is an asset of Colusa Circle. G Signature Print Name Address Date Signature Print Name Address Date �ifnatule Print Name Address // Date Signature r Print Name Address Date 5 i nature Print Nam To: Contra Costa County Zoning Administrator c/o Mr. Mike Henn, AIC, Planner Community Development Department County Administration Building 651 Pine Street, 4`h Floor, North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 RE: DP 03-3047 Colusa Circle Development Plan Modification 370-388 Colusa Ave. Kensington, CA 94707 The undersigned merchants and bus iness'professionals of Colusa Circle and nearby residents support the above captioned development plan application. We believe that it is a positive step in eliminating blight in the area. The planned improvements will greatly enhance the neighborhood commercial area and upgrade the quality of life for nearby residents. We also assert that there is ample on-street parking in the Colusa Circle commercial area and that the availability of parking is an asset of Colusa Circle. tli'4'N rte Signat—ur-e—T 17Print Name Address Date r 111 • Signature Print Name IPS �- Address Date 3 Signature C Print jName Address Date -4 Si ature P 'nt N me Address Date 5 11�' �.o y f 2u 0 Signature Print Name To: Contra Costa County Zoning Administrator c/o Mr. Mike Henn, AIC, Planner Community Development Department County Administration Building 651 Pine Street, 4'h Floor,North Wing • Martinez, CA 94553-0095 RE: DP 03-3047 Colusa Circle Development Plan Modification 370-388 Colusa Ave. Kensington, CA 94707 The undersigned merchants and business professionals of Colusa Circle and nearby residents support the above captioned development plan application. We believe that it is a positive step in eliminating blight in the area. The planned improvements will greatly enhance the neighborhood commercial area and upgrade the quality of life for nearby residents. We also assert that there is ample on-street parking in the Colusa Circle commercial area and that the availability of parking is an asset of Colusa Circle. Signature Print Name Address p Date z /►v�-°`^..r 1„—�' 1. ca r �1 ti v� — (v� Q.S Ci • Signature Print Name Address Date 3 �,�� LC�`-� ✓! I C�✓''7 �` t-t it�i i-.�t. Signature Print Name j4V1 Address Date 4 nature Print Name Address Date 5 pt,6ex" D°`�o 71 x' Signature Print Name r�: To: Contra Costa County Zoning Administrator c/o Mr. Mike Henn, AIC, Planner Community Development Department County Administration Building 651 Pine Street, 4'h Floor, North Wing • Martinez, CA 94553-0095 RE: DP 03-3047 Colusa Circle Development Plan Modification 370-388 Colusa Ave. Kensington, CA 94707 The undersigned merchants and business professionals of Colusa Circle and nearby residents support the above captioned development plan application. We believe that it is a positive step in eliminating blight in the area. The planned improvements will greatly enhance the neighborhood commercial area and upgrade the quality of life for nearby residents. We also assert that there is ample on-street parking in the Colusa Circle commercial area and that the availability of parking is an asset of Colusa Circle. Si e Print Name flIt VI) Address Date • S i nat EV - e r3AddressDate" JLC S r. ��r fS!M Signature Print Name Address Date 4 11,11 Signature Print Name 4o2L P+6r>M<;,Nt' A4 • cx 4"1 O'h4rb11 ' dres - Date 5e'l QY 7N' VI L _ ll Signature `t 70 Print Name To: Contra Costa County Zoning Administrator c/o Mr. Mike Henn, AIC, Planner Community Development Department County Administration Building • 651 Pine Street, 4`h Floor, North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 RE: DP 03-3047 Colusa Circle Development Plan Modification 370-388 Colusa Ave. Kensington, CA 94707 The undersigned merchants and business professionals of Colusa Circle and nearby residents support the above captioned development plan application. We believe that it is a positive step in eliminating blight in the area. The planned improvements will greatly enhance the neighborhood commercial area and upgrade the quality of life for nearby residents. We also assert that there is ample on-street parking in the Colusa Circle commercial area and that the availability of parking is an asset of Colusa Circle. /law Signature \ Print Name Address y Date ,/ }/ d 5__ • Signature Print Name _ Address Date 3 �,.. � Wit---- Signature Print Name Address Date c .Z L- w Signature Print Name Address �� 'r"1=1— g�-��-� Date a 5 Signature Print Name I To: Contra Costa County Zoning Administrator c/o Mr. Mike Henn, AIC, Planner Community Development Department County Administration Building • 651 Pine Street, 4`h Floor, North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 RE: DP 03-3047 Colusa Circle Development Plan Modification 370-388 Colusa Ave. Kensington, CA 94707 The undersigned merchants and business professionals of Colusa Circle and nearby residents support the above captioned development plan application. We believe that it is a positive step in eliminating blight in the area. The planned improvements will greatly enhance the neighborhood commercial area and upgrade the quality of life for nearby residents. We also assert that there is ample on-street parking in the Colusa Circle commercial area and that the availability of parking is an asset of Colusa Circle. Si nature Print Name 0&-Ao VICO Address Date 2 1 D` h • Signature Print Name o HAddress Date '��' NI, Nmi Signature Print Name Address Date f r4 Signature Print Name) Address Date 5Znat ~ f . Print Name 1;7 To: Contra Costa County Zoning Administrator c/o Mr. Mike Henn, AIC, Planner Community Development Department County Administration Building • 651 Pine Street, 4 I Floor, North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 RE: DP 03-3047 Colusa Circle Development Plan Modification 370-388 Colusa Ave. Kensington, CA 94707 The undersigned merchants and business professionals of Colusa Circle and nearby residents support the above captioned development plan application. We believe that it is a positive step in eliminating blight in the area. Tile planned improvements will greatly enhance the neighborhood commercial area and upgrade the quality of life for nearby residents. We also assert that there is ample on-street parking in the Colusa Circle commercial area and that the availability of parking is an asset of Colusa Circle. 1 Signature Print Name V(- , /K1u? A ress Date r4/ worms 2 r c� M at U e'. s� 1 • Signature Print Name o Address Date Signature Print Name P- xir �i`� �"G� tit/////j;7 Address Date 4 7Uti\h Si }nature Print Name '7 r 1 Address Date S � t w RVic� S , U1, C) C Signature Print Name 10-7 To: Contra Costa County Zoning Administrator c/o Mr. Mike Henn, AIC, Planner Community Development Department County Administration Building 651 Pine Street, 4"' Floor, North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 RE: DP 03-3047 Colusa Circle Development Plan Modification 370-388 Colusa Ave. Kensington, CA 94707 The undersigned merchants and business professionals of Colusa Circle and nearby residents support the above captioned development plan application. We believe that it is a positive step in eliminating blight in the area. The planned improvements will greatly enhance the neighborhood commercial area and upgrade the duality of life for nearby residents. We also assert that there is ample on-street parking in the Colusa Circle commercial area and that the availability of parking is an asset of Colusa Circle. J e t>t)l c-Yns1 '�OuA(k� Signature Print Name Address Date Si nature Print Name q y-(1 c:S '2 (- u Address Date Signature Print Name Address Date Signature Print Name Address Date Signature Print Name To: Contra Costa County Zoning Administrator c/o Mr. Mike Henn, AIC, Planner Community Development Department County Administration Building 651 Pine Street, 4t0 Floor, North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 R1 : DP 03-3047 Colusa Circle Development Plan Modification 370-388 Colusa Ave. Kensington, CA 94707 The undersigned merchants and business professionals of Colusa Circle and nearby residents support the abo captioned development plan application. We believe that it is a positive step in eliminating blight in the area. The planned improvements will greatly enhance the neighborhood commercial area and upgrade the quality c life for nearby residents. We also assert that there is ample on-street parking in the Colusa Circle commercial area and that the availability of parking is an asset of Colusa Circle, 1 - V i0 r rk 14 N �� Signature Print Name e A-ve. 715- 101 Address Date 2C'a 7� 4"A/ Signature Print Name 'ey/Z S �� /�;"/a7 Address Date 3R1r4a'('J cQU'r� Signature Print Name 3 0 Address Date 4 � — �� !�7` fley_�oUb<' Signature Print Name Address _ Date � e / Cao19�1 ature Print Name 371.0 C0tuS4/ 57P. 5A cl-4 Y� J� To: Contra Costa County Zoning Administrator c/o Mr. Mike Henn, AIC, Planner Community Development Department County Administration Building • 651 Pine Street, 4"' Floor, North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 kl.:: DII03-3047 Colusa Circle Development Plan Modification 370-388 Colusa Ave. Kensington, CA 94707 The undersigned merchants and business professionals of Colusa Circle and nearby residents support the aboi captioned development plan application. We believe that it is a positive step in eliminating blight in the area. The planned improvements will greatly enhance the neighborhood commercial area and upgrade the duality o life for nearby residents. We also assert that there is ample on-street parking in the Colusa Circle commercial area and that the availability of parking is an asset of Colusa Circle. A 1 � ILI nature Print Name Address Date Signature Print Name Address Date 3 S' nature Print Name Acicjr.�"ss Date 4 ..�/( �/It Sol- lealdi Si Ynaiture Print Name CSS O_/ ' �r7�7�Yd /�• /��'�S/��qf�, � t`I /�l�C�/S . 7//7/0 7 Address Date I _ {� )F7 z� a Si nature Print Name To: Contra Costa County Zoning Administrator c/o Mr. Mike Henn, AIC, Planner Community Development Department County Administration Building 651 Pine Street, 4 I Floor,North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 RE: DP 03-3047 Colusa Circle Development Plan Modification 370-388 Colusa Ave. Kensington, CA 94707 The undersigned merchants and business professionals of Colusa Circle and nearby residents support the above captioned development plan application. We believe that it is a positive step in eliminating blight in the area. The planned improvements will greatly enhance the neighborhood commercial area and upgrade the quality of life for nearby residents. We also assert that there is ample on-street parking in the Colusa Circle commercial area and that the availability of parking is an asset of Colusa Circle. 1 `�L!✓y�.c:a�` (-�(u�rt��,,c ��. C.Cscl� C A'�'A�Av , Signature U Print Name Address �1 C.W , �, Date Signature Print Name 1,)e tZ? I �t ///`L1 12�717 Address Date 3 j Signature Print Name Address Date Signature Print Name ybb Ar . 6 — I Z - U � Address Date 5 Signature Print Name r 1 � � To: Contra Costa County Zoning Administrator c/o Mr. Mike Henn, AIC, Planner Community Development Department County Administration Building 651 Pine Street, 0 Floor,North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 RE: DP 03-3047 Colusa Circle Development Plan Modification 370-388 Colusa Ave. Kensington, CA 94707 The undersigned merchants and business professionals of Colusa Circle and nearby residents support the above captioned development plan application. We believe that it is a positive step in eliminating blight in the area. The planned improvements will greatly enhance the neighborhood commercial area and upgrade the quality of life for nearby residents. We also assert that there is ample on-street parking in the Colusa Circle commercial area and that the availability of parking is an asset of Colusa Circle. I'Signature Print Name Address Date Signature Print Name Address Date 3 r IY& Sigr&tiire Print Name Address Date (A ZZ21C� 4 Signature "7A4.•1. Print Name Address Date 5 Signature Print Name r To: Contra Costa County Zoning Administrator c/o Mr. Mike Henn, AIC, Planner Community Development Department County Administration Building 651 Pine Street, 4`h Floor,North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 RE: DP 03-3047 Colusa Circle Development Plan Modification 370-388 Colusa Ave. Kensington, CA 94707 The undersigned merchants and business professionals of Colusa Circle and nearby residents support the above captioned development plan application. We believe that it is a positive step in eliminating blight in the area. The planned improvements will greatly enhance the neighborhood commercial area and upgrade the quality of life for nearby residents. We also assert that there is ample on-street parking in the Colusa Circle commercial area and that the availability of parking is an asset of Colusa Circle. 1 �.,''`. � � � LIZE_ L Si"na Print Name Address Date 2 _ L �c _ = I'(,Ly lv L cvLLv C c_ Signature Print Name `Its' 1 t\ 1\c�c;►<� yr �� (l�i�, ? I 0 U Address Date 3 ,I,\\\ W'\ Signature Print Name Address Date C-, I L o u }- L 3 c.•I Signature 1•...,c� J ` �`�'`-' Print Name Address Date (; z 10'7 5 Signature Print Name L To: Contra Costa County Zoning Administrator c/o Mr. Mike Henn, AIC, Planner Community Development Department County Administration Building 0 . 651 Pine Street, 4`h Floor,North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 RE: DP 03-3047 Colusa Circle Development Plan Modification 370-388 Colusa Ave. Kensington, CA 94707 The undersigned merchants and business professionals of Colusa Circle and nearby residents support the above captioned development plan application. We believe that it is a positive step in eliminating blight in the area. The planned improvements will greatly enhance the neighborhood commercial area and upgrade the quality of life for nearby residents. We also assert that there is ample on-street parking in the Colusa Circle commercial area and that the availability of parking is an asset of Colusa Circle. 1 { Signature' "" Print Name iLA2 Address Date 1IC Signature Print Name Address Date 3 , Signalpie Print Name Address Date Signature Print Name r /� ? Address Date 5 Signature 1 Print Name To: Contra Costa County Zoning Administrator c/o Mr. Mike Henn,AIC, Planner Community Development Department County Administration Building • 651 Pine Street, 4(h Floor,North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 RE: DP 03-3047 Colusa Circle Development Plan Modification 370-388 Colusa Ave. Kensington, CA 94707 The undersigned merchants and business professionals of Colusa Circle and nearby residents support the above captioned development plan application. We believe that it is a positive step in eliminating blight in the area. The planned improvements will greatly enhance the neighborhood commercial area and upgrade the quality of life for nearby residents. We also assert that there is ample on-street parking in the Colusa Circle commercial area and that the availability of parking is an asset of Colusa Circle. Si ture Print Name Address Date 11 Ile C Signature Print Name J61/�l v1n c►�( (y/ `�`�J�(i C" Address Date J�ty nature Print Name IGS I��v \0n � l- - t 7 Addr ss Date Signature Print Name Address Date 5 Signature Print Name To: Contra Costa County Zoning Administrator c/o Mr. Mike Henn, AIC, Planner Community Development Department County Administration Building 651 Pine Street, 4`h Floor, North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 RE: DP 03-3047 Colusa Circle Development Plan Modification 370-388 Colusa Ave. Kensington, CA 94707 The undersigned merchants and business professionals of Colusa Circle and nearby residents support the above captioned development plan application. We believe that it is a positive step in eliminating blight in the area. The planned improvements will greatly enhance the neighborhood commercial area and upgrade the quality of life for nearby residents. We also assert that there is ample on-street parking in the Colusa Circle commercial area and that the availability of parking is an asset of Colusa Circle. Signature Print Name D --3D Address Date Iry �- r c tZ Signature Print Name Address Date L �' 1 •, I Signature Print Name 4�'rvu Ct 7 1 I 0 I 0 Address Date Si J ature`, Print Name Address _.i Date 5 Signature Print Name To: Contra Costa County Zoning Administrator c/o Mr. Mike Henn, AIC, Planner Community Development Department County Administration Building • 651 Pine Street, 4"' Floor, North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 1t L, 1)P 03-3047 Colusa Circle Development Plan Modification 370-388 Colusa Ave. Kensington, CA 94707 The undersigned merchants and business professionals of Colusa Circle and nearby residents support the abs captioned development plan application. We believe that it is a positive step in eliminating blight in the are, The planned improvements will greatly enhance the neighborhood commercial area and upgrade the quality life for nearby residents. We also assert that there is ample on-street parking in the Colusa Circle commerd area and that the availability of parking is an asset of Colusa Circle. Signature Print Nan'le Address Date z 1 1[4 ' � 4,YTN C 4 M' Signature Print Name 7 '-/ � Address Date 3 _. Si nature; Print Name Addy ss Date 4 all Signature Print Name 3 -7 (P C 0 US Ai� CC V1 c Address Date Signature Print Name To: Contra Costa County Zoning Administrator c/o Mr. Mike Henn, AIC, Planner Community Development Department County Administration Building 651 Pine Street, 4"' Floor, North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 ItE: DP 03-3047 Colusa Circle Development Plan Modification 370-388 Colusa Ave. Kensington, CA 94707 The undersigned merchants and business professionals of Colusa Circle and nearby residents support the ab( captioned development plan application. We believe that it is a positive step in eliminating blight in the arei The planned improvements will greatly enhance the neighborhood commercial area and upgrade the quality life for nearby residents. We also assert that there is ample on-street parking in the Colusa Circle commercii area and that the availability of'parking is an asset of Colusa Circle. 1 -� -7�_l Signature Print Name .�4 u Address ((J� Date Z �iK lt.U� (M.0��"e. . 7/2-0(0 Signature Print Name 1511 Sc�v, Cc S fie , A441 64 Rif?dc ClzUaL'?,, Ntoor4. Address Date 3 Signature Print Name t Address Date Si afore Print Name Address _ T Date S Signature Print Name Z ( To: Contra Costa County Zoning Administrator c/o Mr. Mike Henn, A1C, Planner Community Development Department County Administration Building 651 Pine Street, 4`h Floor, North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 ltl ; DP 03-3047 Colusa Circle Development Plan Modification 370-388 Colusa Ave. Kensington, CA 94707 The undersigned merchants and business professionals of Colusa Circle and nearby residents support the abm captioned development plan application. We believe that it is a positive step in eliminating blight in the area. The planned improvements will greatly enhance the neighborhood commercial area and upgrade the duality o life for nearby residents, We also assert that there is ample on-street parking in the Colusa Circle commercial area and that the availability of parking is ari asset of Colusa Circle. / c7 h j r1 n r,-_ Signature Print Name �� -�t�-�►� �. �,��..a,,.� � �yid Address Date Signature Print Name Address Date 3 �� -�' Ta 14, Signature Print Name 37L Cd 7 , Address Date 4 Signature Print Name Address Date ,S Signature Print Name 3 Z To: Contra Costa County Zoning Administrator c/o Mr. Mike Henn, AIC, Planner Community Development Department County Administration Building • 651 Pine Street, 4`h Floor,North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 RE: DP 03-3047 Colusa Circle Development Plan Modification 370-388 Colusa Ave. Kensington, CA 94707 The undersigned merchants and business professionals of Colusa Circle and nearby residents support the above captioned development plan application. We believe that it is a positive step in eliminating blight in the area. The planned improvements will greatly enhance the neighborhood commercial area and upgrade the quality of life for nearby residents. We also assert that there is ample on-street parking in the Colusa Circle commercial. area and that the availability of parking is an asset of Colusa Circle. natu e Print Name Address Date 2 Si nature Print Name Address Date 3 Signature Print Name Address Date 4 Signature Print Name Address Date 5 Signature Print Name S To: Contra Costa County Zoning Administrator c/o Mr. Mike Henn, AIC, Planner Community Development Department County Administration Building • 651 Pine Street, 4"' Floor, North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 RE: DP 03-3047 Colusa Circle Development Plan Modification 370-388 Colusa Ave. Kensington, CA 94707 The undersigned merchants and business professionals of Colusa Circle and nearby residents support the above captioned development plan application. We believe that it is a positive step in eliminating blight in the area. The planned improvements will greatly enhance the neighborhood commercial area and upgrade the quality of life for nearby residents. We also assert that there is ample on-street parking in the Colusa Circle commercial area and that the availability of parking is an asset of Colusa Circle. W ('CDe� a pray-�� 01 Signat&6 Print Name WC)r ve 'S - -> S ome 7 �1 U cit un 6 . d- ) .v Address Date i2 Signature Print Name Address Date 3 Signature Print Name Address Date 4 Signature Print Name Address Date 5 Signature Print Name To: Contra Costa County Zoning Administrator c/o Mr. Mike Henn, AIC, Planner RE: DP 03-3047 Colusa Circle Development Plan Modification 370-388 Colusa Ave. Kensington, CA 94707 Dear Mr. Henn: It seems to me, as someone who has biked towork at 384 Colusa Circle for the past 12 years, that there is ample on-street parking available in the Colusa Circle area. Mr. Hammond's plan to install bike racks will make this even less of concern, along with the fact that the site is on a bus route and 20 minutes-walk from a BART station. It's fairly likely that more people will be using alternatives to the private automobile in the future, as well as be more inclined to patronize neighborhood businesses, thereby reducing the need for parking. Sincerely, Micaela Pronio • CdbJ • A RESPONSE TO THOSE CITIZENS CONCERNED ABOUT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS ON COLUSA CIRCLE While I respect the rights for civic-minded citizens to dissent and voice their opposition, I find it offensive when those fomenting dissent resort to distorting the truth and circulating misinformation to rally others to their cause. I also find it odd that when those same civic minded citizens are expressing their outrage,they are reluctant to establish a dialogue with the `so called' offending parties or to allow an opportunity to meet and discuss their concerns face to face. There are two distinct proposals for development on Colusa Circle, both of which would be considered modest by any means of measurement; especially when compared to developments presently being built in surrounding communities---Berkeley, Albany and El Cerrito. The two applications are on two distinct paths and each needs to be considered on its own individual merits. The two development applications: (DP 03 3047) as submitted by the undersigned, Ed Hammonds (architect Alex Korn) and application (DP 06 3026) submitted by Carol Chisholm (architect Andrew Woolman). It is definitely an overstatement to assert that one or the cumulative developments are "major"in scope.* My development plan modification was submitted to the County in 2003 (DP 03 3047) and proposes to reduce the scope of the plan approved in 1983 and more particularly • what was considered Phase III & IV of the original development plan.** My modification application affects the triangular block, the even numbered storefronts from 370—388 Colusa Ave., directly to the west of the parcels owned by Narsai David, namely the former"Porto Brasil" and former Golden Apple School sites. After three years and six meetings with KMAC, I finally received their recommendation for approval on a 4-1 vote on May 29, 2007. The next step is the County of Contra Costa review and a hearing with the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission. Carol Chisholm's application (DP 06 3026) concerns the 401 Colusa site and was submitted to the County in 2006. Her application seeks a General Plan Amendment to remove her parcel from the Planned Development and regain its former R-B zoning status. She is applying to build a mixed use---retail and three residential condominium units at 401 Colusa Ave., at present a vacant lot. Her development is a substantial reduction in Phase II of the original Development Plan which entailed building a two level 33 car parking structure at 411 Colusa and a three story retail/restaurant building on the corner. That plan was scrapped when the house at 411 Colusa Ave. was rebuilt (rather then demolished to make way for the parking structure). The garage structure also proved to be financially infeasible to build. With Ms Chisholm converting the majority of the 401 Colusa property to residential usage, the parking and traffic requirements are significantly reduced. Carol's architect, Andrew Woolman, frustrated by the arduous KMAC review process, called for a vote after their third KMAC appearance in April 2007 and the application iwas summarily rejected on a 4-0 vote. The objections expressed by KMAC members • centered on the three story height of the building, which in turn raised concerns about `view' impacts. The other objection concerned the adequacy of off-street parking and the completeness of the Parking Study prepared by Charlie Abrams& Associates. What steps the County will take, in light of the KMAC vote is unknown. My application(DP 03 3047) seeks permission to build a 1,629 square foot addition to the 384-88 Colusa building and a new three story 8,360 square foot structure at 370 Colusa Circle. The plan involves the demolition of a two story fire damaged structure at 1537 Oak View Ave, the MG car repair garage at 370 Colusa and the cutting down of three trees. The destruction of the 1537 Oak View office and the trees was necessary to provide 13 off street parking spaces for the new construction and counter balance the thrust of my opponents' objections to my application. Opponents to my development have focused their criticism on the amount of off-street parking being provided and the height of the building at 370 Colusa. With the 12 additional on street spaces being created by the diagonal parking on Oak View and Santa Fe Ave., there will be a total of 25 new parking spaces. Planting new trees and installing street lights on all sides of the triangle parcel, a new garden/fountain area, a large patio area and re-paving 690 linear feet of sidewalk were already a part of my original submission. During the course of the six KMAC meetings, I agreed to totally change the fagade of the infill to be built between 380 & 384 Colusa, step back the third story of the 370 Colusa building on both Colusa and Santa Fe, and • change the angle of the diagonal parking to mitigate Public Works concerns. KMAC attached five additional conditions to their recommendation for approval. KMAC would not budge from their insistence on a new traffic and parking study. Prior to my last meeting, I agreed to provide a study to assess the possible traffic and parking impacts of my new construction. In addition to the scope defined by KMAC, I contracted with Wilbur Smith and Associates, the traffic engineers, to supplement their report with two additional studies. One to assess the capacity of Santa Fe Ave. to accommodate diagonal parking and the other to assess the current availability of on-street parking in the Colusa Circle area. The traffic study affirmed that the new parking created for my development was more than adequate and there were usually 40% of the on street parking available during most hours of a normal business day. That certainly dispels the notion that there are major traffic and parking problems at Colusa Circle. After making numerous modifications to address stated concerns, I earned KMAC's recommendation for approval. I should be allowed to proceed to the next phase of review by Contra Costa County officials without further delay. There are likely to be additional conditions stipulated by the County during my next hearing, so my journey is far from complete. Under the most optimistic scenarios and even with expeditious County approvals, my project will not be completed until 2009. If there are those that are still oppose my application, I ask that you do so honestly and not arouse unwarranted concerns by spreading false rumors and misinformation about my • project. • Let's work collaboratively to ensure that Colusa Circle evolves in a way that we can all be proud of and feel good about. A place that is safe, pedestrian-friendly and relevant for those living in the immediate neighborhood. I invite you to join with me in bringing this vision to fruition. *Narsai David has recently submitted an application to Contra Costa County for a change in use of his property at 385 Colusa Ave./350 Berkeley Park Blvd. His application is not yet deemed complete by the County(as of June 29, 2007). His first KMAC hearing is scheduled for July 31, 2007. Since details of his plans are still sketchy, all that can be said at this point is that his application is long overdue and eagerly anticipated. Even when you add Mr. David's application to renovate the dilapidated former restaurant site, the cumulative impact of all three development applications does not add up to a `major'development in any sense of the word.. If anything, it should be a positive step to rid the area of blight and create a more attractive and viable retail environment. ** Though there was a well-orchestrated opposition to my original development plan in 1983, I received near unanimous approval at the Planning Commission and unanimous approval at the Board of Supervisors. My opponents would not be deterred and filed a lawsuit to contest the approval of the Board of Supervisors. The decision of the Board • of Supervisors was validated in court, with affirmative Superior and Appellate Court decisions. Edward E Hammonds 384 Colusa Circle Kensington, CA 94707 (SIO) 559-1501 (office) (510) 559-1507 (facsimile) edhammonds@aoLcom • • My RESPONSE TO THE SECOND OF MS. STOLLON'S E-MAILS dated June 14, 2007 I agree with some of Ms Stollon's sentiments about the Colusa Circle neighborhood. I believe my development plan application (DP 03 3047) addresses and is sensitive to those concerns. In time, I believe that Ms. Stollon will come to realize that my small development project will prove to be one of the finer examples in the East Bay of "sensible growth, sensible density and appropriate for the neighborhood projects. " I have melded an attractive design with a sensitivity to the immediate environs. My plans evolved over three (3) years of public scrutiny and after making countless modifications. I will admit that the end result is far superior to what was originally submitted and I thank KMAC for their thoughtful criticisms. Those who have followed the process from the outset are fully aware of this. My intent is to give local residents a reason to come and stay awhile on the Circle. My aim is to create a pedestrian friendly environment that will serve the interests of the local community. Ms. Stollon and her group should focus their wrath toward those landowners who are not maintaining their property, who have brought in inappropriate, transient tenants with little regard to the neighborhood. Other buildings have been neglected, currently have four vacancies and • are a blight to the area. My buildings are full with long term established merchants, mostly sole proprietors, who have had minimal impact on traffic and parking. There is a reason for this. **I will be installing new bike racks (one of KMAC's five conditions of approval) in the coming weeks. I will also phone and meet with the Kensington Police Department to request that they enforce the parking restrictions and promote better traffic: safety in the Colusa Circle area. No need to wait to get final approval from the County to address areas of concern to the community and take the little steps to make Colusa Circle a better place. BY: EDWARD Y. HAMMONDS Dated 6/29/07 Community Development, Contra Costa County Dear Mr. Henn: As you know there are growing concerns in the neighborhood, regarding the 2 projects proposed for the Colusa Circle: Hammonds office/stores proposal and the condo's /stores proposal. Now we understand, Narsai David will be proposing a project on the Circle at the site of his former restaurant. This may compound the problem in terms of traffic congestion, safety for pedestrians, bicyclists,parking etc. The neighborhood , those in Kensington, El Cerrito, Albany and Berkeley who live nearby and are affected by the Circle development are gathering signatures for a petition to the County, to request that these developments be looked at very closely and their total impact on the Circle and those who live around it be evaluated. Many people are not aware that this is being proposed. Because this Circle is close to so many towns, it impacts both Alameda and CCCty residents. For example,for your consideration, but not raised at the meetings: the traffic survey indicates there is a lot of parking on Berkeley Park Blvd (near the Pub) , that narrow steep 2 way street becomes ONE lane when cars are legally parked on both sides of the street in the afternoon / evening as people come home. If it gets filled all day with these new projects, it will become another dangerous street with cars and trucks vying with each other to get by. Is anyone aware of that?? Again, we are requesting that the county be vigilant looking out for our best interests, safety issues, and that a comprehensive review be taken of development in our area, since we will have to live with it for years to come. There is no reason to build to the max and create another traffic jammed area. ***Can you tell us when the Hammonds project is scheduled for a hearing? Sincerely, Homeowners of Eldridge Ct. Marilyn Stollon John Gaccione Jean Langford Ben Clow • • MY RESPONSE TO RODNEY PAUL'S E-MAIL I invite those of you that care about the Colusa Circle environs to come see me. Before signing any petition, supporting or opposing, please study the proposed projects and judge each on its own merits. The Circle area has been neglected and sorely in need of restoration. It needs new merchants to add new life and make the commercial area relevant to those living close by. This needs to be done with care and sensitivity—which I have attempted to do. Efforts to eliminate the blight should not be undermined but lauded. The revitalization is long overdue. Ed Hammonds (510) 559-1501 (office)/edhammonds@aol.com From Rodney Paul, Kensington resident: I am a cyclist who lives near the Colusa Circle in Kensington. I want to alert GPC members to development that has been proposed to our neighborhood that could affect the area in many ways, including cycling safety. I am part of a neighborhood group that is circulating a petition expressing concern that the scope of this development is out of • character with the existing area and may be detrimental. We are seeking signatures from Kensington, El Cerrito, Berkeley and Albany residents supporting our recommendations to ameliorate this. I welcome dissent and alternative points of view. I do, however, take offense when those opposed to my application (DP 03 0347) resort to distributing misinformation and distorting the facts. I noticed Mr. Paul for the first time at my sixth Kensington Municipal Advisory Council (KMAC) meeting on May 29, 2007, during which KMAC recommended approval of my application on a 4-1 vote. I do not recall that Mr. Paul attended any of the five previous meetings over the past three years. My project evolved over this process as I made numerous changes to address neighborhood concerns. *CORRECTION:after meeting with Mr. Paul on June 28, 2007,1 realized that he attended the last three KMAC meetings. One thing that strikes me about Mr. Paul's comments is that if he works and spends most of his day in San Francisco, how much does he know about the traffic or parking conditions on the Circle? I have maintained a business on the Circle for 22 of the past 30 years. I am ' at work on the Circle at least 6 days a week and have never encountered a problem parking near my office. Colusa Ave. is a popular thoroughfare for cyclists. The addition of traffic from the projects and a plan to change a portion of Oak View Ave. to be one-way could make the area more hazardous for riders. I bike commute every day to BART, and I am particularly concerned about how this will affect the intersection of Colusa and Santa Fe Avenues, which I already find to be hazardous. d How does making a short 230 foot long block one way increase hazards to bikers? . Changing the short block to one way and eliminating traffic going in the opposite direction should make it safer for bikers. In any case, an associate at Kensington Research Group has biked to work on the Circle for the past 12 years and is supporting my project. Some of Tom Hendrickson's employees bike to work on occasion. To encourage more people to bike to the Circle, I will be installing bike racks soon (one of five KMAC conditions of approval) . There are plans to build a new 3-story building on the vacant lot bordering Oak View and Colusa on the Circle. There is also a plan to add a third story to the existing building on Colusa that houses Semifreddi's bakery. These will add a significant amount of commercial and retail space. Some parking will be added but not enough to satisfy Contra Costa County guidelines, and we feel it will dramatically affect the traffic flow in the area. A traffic study reviewing the impact of this work has not been done because the developers have argued that a study done 25 years ago is adequate. The three story structure proposed by Carol Chisholm (DP 06 3026) for 401 Colusa was voted down by KMAC on a 4-0 vote at their April Meeting. The application is still before the County and it is unclear what the County's posture will be in light of the KMAC vote. In any case there will be further public hearings and opportunities for comment. My project (DP 03 3047) is not being built on the,building that houses . Semifreddi's, but rather the dilapidated MG car repair site at 370 Colusa. My plan will add a total of 3-4 new shops and 2-5 new office spaces. Mr. Paul should study my plans more carefully so he can correctly identify what he is opposed to. If Mr. Paul had attended earlier meetings, he would know that I did provide a new traffic study that' exceeded the scope requested by KMAC. The report was prepared by Wilbur Smith and Associates and is dated May 24, 2007. If anyone would want a copy of the traffic report or copies of the renderings for my project, I would be more than pleased to make them available. I would be happy to provide copies of the proposed plans to anyone who wants to see them. In the meantime, I am attaching a copy of our petition as well as a flyer about this. We are in the process of forming a neighborhood association to make sure our voices are clearly heard by Contra Costa County decision makers. We would be grateful for signatures from GPC members and other concerned members of the cycling community. Thanks, Rodney Paul What I Envision for Colusa Circle Now that KMAC has recommended approval of my development plan modification (DP 03 3047) at the meeting on May 29, 2007, I can begin to articulate how I envision making Colusa Circle more relevant and viable for the immediate neighbors. I intend to promote a more pedestrian-friendly environment, one in which neighbors will come,mingle and spend a part of their day. I will bring new retailers to which locals will want to walk rather than drive across town to find elsewhere. The first generation of shops were service oriented and patrons tended to stop, drop-off or pick-up, and go. I want to give people a reason to linger. Angel Court (sans mural) is being restored with more plants and new benches. The next phase of merchants has begun with the recent opening of the Alchemy Skin Spa at 380 Colusa and the relocation of the Hendrickson Chiropractic Clinic to 388 Colusa Circle. These stores were com 1p etely renovated and serve as show pieces of what is to come. Francesca Cavanaugh moved her business from Walnut Square and Tom Hendrickson was practicing quietly just off the Circle for 20 years on Berkeley Park Blvd. As a side note, I sold the house at 411 Colusa to Marianne Beacham, a.certified muscular therapist, who has moved her home business to the Circle after 10 years at El Cerrito Plaza. These three new businesses are emblematic of the future of the Circle as a center for health and healing. That theme will be kept in mind when prospecting for a business for the new storefront at 382 Colusa Circle. Semifreddi's is considering a relocation into about 800 square feet in the new building at 370 Colusa Circle (adjacent to their current shop) and the remaining one or two storefronts at 370 Colusa will be leased to businesses that would be of interest to the over 60's crowd (which is a fast growing demographic). The upper floor offices will be leased to psychotherapists, educational consultants and other business professionals, much the same as the businesses on the second floors of 376 and 384 Colusa. I plan to add more amenities such as new streetlights and new trees on all three sides of the triangle parcel bounded by Colusa, Oak View and Santa Fe, a garden/fountain area and a new mural to help create a sense of place. There is the additional challenge of redoing 690 linear feet of sidewalk and finding a way for all this to pencil out. After KMAC, there are still many hurdles to overcome and under the most optimistic scenario completion is not slated until 2009. Considering the modest nature of the new buildings—an infill addition to the existing building at 384-88 and a new structure at 370 Colusa—it is just a beginning. Until the other commercial properties on the Circle are upgraded, Colusa will remain a work in progress and will not come full circle. I am waiting with anticipation to see what the largest landowner on the Circle,Narsai David, has in mind for his properties. I look forward to working cooperatively with Carol Chisholm and Narsai to align our visions and create a synergy(the sum being greater than the parts)that will benefit everyone. 0 -7 June 21 2007 Contra Costa County Zoning Administrator c/o Mr. Michael Henn AIC, Planner Community Development Department County Administration Building 651 Pine Street, 4t' Floor, North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 Re: DP 03-3047 Colusa Circle PUD Modification Application 370-388 Colusa Ave. Kensington, CA Dear Mr. Henn: Thank you for providing a copy of the May 31, 2007 e-mail being circulated by Marilyn Stollon. I don't quite agree with your suggestion that I have Wilbur Smith &Associates respond. Ms. Stollon's critique of the Parking and Traffic Study is severely flawed and only serves to illustrate her lack of understanding of existing conditions and standard industry methodology. Her e-mail is a prime example of the misinformation being circulated to arouse opposition to my application. I have attached my summary response to Ms. Stollon's e-mail. I am not overly concerned about the current brouhaha. Keep in mind that my current modification application is a substantial reduction in scope of the planned unit development that was originally approved in 1983. 1 weathered a far greater controversy at that time and prevailed. After enduring six (6) KMAC meetings scrutinizing every aspect of my current application, I'm confident that my current project will survive any new challenges. During the meeting on May 29, 2007, KMAC recommended approval of my project on a 4-1 vote though there were more people in attendance that spoke in opposition to my application than at any prior meeting. Many who spoke in opposition to my application were there for the very first time and did not have a clear grasp of the proposed improvements. They were there to object and were probably prompted to attend by the hysteria being created by the most rabid of my opponents. Overall, I was more dismayed than surprised by many of the comments. My primary disappointment being that during the three years that my application has been under review, not once did any of the opponents to my application ever agree to engage in a dialogue to discuss their concerns. Nor did any of my opponents offer to work with me to make the project better for all concerned. They chose instead to perpetuate the myth that there is a traffic or parking problem, which necessitated the demolition of the building at 1537 Oak View Ave. and removal of three trees in order to maximize the off-street parking. Had the neighbors not persisted in their spreading this falsehood, other alternatives could have been considered. In any case,please confirm a July Zoning Administrator hearing date for my application. Hopefully we can hold to the Julyl6t' date. This project is much overdue and the delays are proving costly. If you have any further questions or concerns, please phone me. Thanks again for your consideration. Yours truly, Edward Y. Hammonds Enclosures cc: Mr. Bob Drake, Community Development Department Mr. Larry Gossett, Public Works Mr. Jerry Fahy, Public Works Supervisor John Gioia Ms. Marilyn Stollon MY RESPONSE TO MARILYN ST©LL®N'S MAY 31, 2007 E-MAIL BY Edward Y. Hammonds -----Forwarded by Michael Henn/CD/CCC on 05/31/2007 10:22AM ----- To: Larry Gossett <larryagossettce.com>, mhennaa cd.cccounty.us, Rodney Paul <Rodney.Paul(a)schwab.com>, Jerry Fahy <jfahypw.cccounty.us>, whan(a)pw.co.contra-costa.ca.us From: Marilyn Stollon <mstollon(dearthlink.net> Date: 05/30/2007 05:13PM cc: Barbara L Haux <barbara.haux(a)cbsoutdoor,com>, Beth Johnson <Beth.JohnsonCcbceb ucop edu>, bjctrains(aaol.com, dwnlynch(cbDacbell.net, Diane Low <dianehlow(agyahoo.com>, dp(a)wiredbay.com, DrLSchwartzburdaaol.com, Eileen Nottoli <enottoli(dallenmatkins.com>, Ellen Mills <ellen mills(asbcglobal.net>, Ernie <ernie(a)view360imaginq com>, Gabriella Gordon-Clark <ggtwo(a)hotmail.com>, Gary Low <m g low a()pacbell.net>, Grazina Bivins <gbivins(a)mcquire.com>, Holly Haugh <hhaugh(a sbcglobal.net>, "J Folger- Brown (Toni)" <jfolgerbrownacomcast.net>, Jan <Jandedr(abnetwiz.net>, jandederna netwiz.net, Janet Hittle <jhittle(cbTGP-INC.com>, Jaz Zaitlin <jaz(adlimi.net>, jchittle(aj)yahoo.com, Jenny Schaffell <jschaffell(@yahoo.com>, Jessica Lorenz <jessie.lorenz(dgmail.com>, Joe Koontz <hanashiaru(awahoo.com>, John Joseph Clark <john-jo(a&comcast.net>, mary mark <wegorn(a>sbcglobal.net>, Nancy McClure <nlmcclure(c)sbcglobal.net>, Nicholas Wellington <nickwell(alpacbell.net>, Nick Paige <npaige(abberkeley.edu>, Paul Mills <.gaul d mills(Lsbcglobal.net>, Rita Haberlin <-haberlinCC�aol.com>, Rob Gilman <rgilman(abgarciaandassociates.com>, Robert E Giusti <randbgiusti(a�juno.com>, robnjudith(cDsbcglobal.net, Sandy <sanhodo(a)yahoo.com>, sarah paulabiorad.com, Thomas Foley <thomasefoley(clgmail.com>, timhoyeracomcast.net, Tom Bonnet <timwbonnetCftahoo.com>, Vance Martin <underredwoodayahoo.com>, ilvcoimbra(aaol.com, JGioia(cbbos.cccounty.us Subject: parking study, Colusa Circle Project Re: Parking Survey, traffic issues for the Colusa Circle Development Dear Mr. Gossett: I carefully reviewed the survey and there appear to be errors and omissions in it. I presented this information at the KMAC mtg where there were ongoing objections by the neighborhood to the traffic issues,unsafe intersections, not enough parking, large scale of the project* for the area, lack of consideration for how this in synergy with another project will affect the circle. *The project can hardly be considered large scale when it consists of a 1,629 square foot addition to the building at 384-88 Colusa Circle and a new 8,.360 square foot structure at 370 Colusa. This development is quite modest and sensitive to the existing environs when compared to new projects sprouting up in surrounding communities. • The figures for occupancy/and demand for parking spaces quoted in this report are riot accurate* and the omission of these businesses makes the circle appear to be underutilized in terms of parking, when it is not..* This is because the spaces are in the process of being rented out and the parking spaces they will use were not counted in the survey. *Under what premise is Ms. Stolon making this assertion? *The Wilbur Smith (W-S) Traffic and Parking Study treated 85 % of the available spaces as the maximum capacity, which would seem to allow for the three vacancies cited in Ms Stollon's e-mail. As asserted in the Wilbur Smith Study, at no time is the available parking in the commercial area fully occupied and there is generally 40 % of the spaces available at most hours of the day. #1. One of the office spaces currently being renovated by Mr. Hammonds was NOT accurately counted in the demand for parking. Right now the building on the corner of the circle at Oakview directly across from the Bistro is being renovated for a new tenant. IF it was acknowledged in the report, then it would add at least 3-4 employees and any number of clients. That space will be used shortly by a busy chiropractor who is currently doing business right off the circle. The new tenant, Tom Hendrickson is already in the Colusa Circle commercial area, leasing the premises at 406 Berkeley Park Blvd at the time of the W-S Study. So Tom Hendrickson's impact on parking was taken into account. Moving the business from 406 Berkeley Park Blvd to 388 Colusa Ave. does not, in itself, increase the demand for parking. His space will in turn be vacant and could be rented out for commercial use, requiring parking. The net result is these 2 spaces increase the parking demand and add 8 employees and 8 or more clients for the 2 spaces..a total of 10-16 or more parking spaces will be needed in the circle shortly. They are not counted in the parking survey. 'The small two bedroom house Tom Hendrickson was leasing on Berkeley Park Blvd was approximately 800 square feet. It had not been modified for commercial usage and would most easily be re- rented as a single family residence. Ms. Stollon's assertion of the increased parking demand of a possible new occupant is unfounded. In October of 2006, I sold a much larger single family residence of approximately 1,100 square feet at 411 Colusa Circle to a single occupant for her home/business. If Ms. Stollon is really concerned about the occupancy level, she should contact the owner and encourage him to lease the property as a residence to a single person or Ms. Stollon and her cohorts should buy the property and they can then control the occupancy. #2. The flower shop, owned by someone else; is being renovated and it too can hold 3-4 or more staff depending on the use whether it is retail or office plus customers. That was not included or acknowledged in the survey in terms of demand. Add 4-7 spaces for staff and clients. Ms Stollon's projections are not supported by the parking demand generated by the previous tenant. The previous operators wee two ladies who spent the majority of their day sitting on lounge chairs and smoking cigarettes in front of their store. It's doubtful that there were 4-7 clients a day, let alone at one time. ***This comes to a total of 14-23 additional full & part time SPACES THAT WILL BE NEEDED SHORTLY WHEN THESE 2-3 commercial spaces are in use for employees and customers. Ms Stollon's projections are unsupported and are totally specious. #3. The county requires 37 off street parking spots, with 13 supplied by'Mr. Hammonds. I researched* how many employees can work in the new project and it ranges from 28- to over 35 depending on the layout of the office i.e. efficient, typical or spacious. With the high price of square footage, I would anticipate that an employer will pack people into these spaces and there probably will be more than 35 employees looking for parking, not counting customers. *What source is Ms. Stollon citing as a reference? Rather than letting her imagination run rampant or making projections based on abstract concepts, let's examine the occupancy and parking demand generated by the businesses I have leased on Colusa Circle. I am preparing a TABLE A., which is a survey of the use and average daily occupancy of the businesses I have brought to the Circle. This would be more indicative of future occupancy levels and potential for traffic generation. I have gone to great pains to minimize the impact on traffic in parking in the neighborhood by leasing to small businesses appropriate for the neighborhood. Merchants, who live in the community and understand the community. I have leased to over 7-8 businesses on the Circle that have thrived for more than 20 years, which is remarkable for small business operators. The 2-4 new shops that I will bring to the Circle will not generate significant impact on traffic or parking. As I have developed a formula, why would I change it? • What is allocated by zoning is not finite and there can be more employees in those spaces. 37 spaces is not really enough and will really clog traffic at 5 pm when there is an exodus from the building. Totally unsupported by existing conditions and nowhere near accurate as to the possible 2-4 new retail shops and possible 2-5 new office spaces of my development. The data regarding existing businesses cited above would be more accurate in assessing possible impacts. #5 Retail stores are in Hammonds plan, yet the survey only goes until 4 pm and stores stay open until 7 or later and are open on the w/e, and that is when the circle is extremely busy. This survey does not address the parking and TRAFFIC demands from 4-7 pm when the circle is full of people coming home, quickly traversing the circle from Bkly to EI Cerrito, or stopping to shop, go to the pub, dinner . The increase in traffic during commute hours, 4:30 PM - 6:30 PM is generally traffic that is passing through the Circle rather than stopping. The increased commuter traffic really has minimal impact on parking as most of my stores and offices are closed at 5:00 PM and none past 6:00 PM. ***At the KMAC meeting, last night the council members recommended that the county do a traffic survey to study the impact on the Circle of Hammonds project and the 401 Colusa project which is in process of being re- designed/reviewed etc. (R. Hernandez is the planner at the cty, as I recall). I hope this will occur. * *This statement is not accurate. Please review the KMAC minutes of the May 29, 2007 meeting. KMAC was going to recommend to the County that one planner be assigned to review all Colusa Circle commercial applications and that each applicant be required to submit a traffic and parking study as part of their application. #5. The last unoccupied space is Porto Brasil Restaurant , a large space that is ready to rent, but has been vacant and potentially could be rented at any time without the need for any approval by KMAC etc. . This existing space would sharply increase the need for parking and of course add to the traffic demand. THINK ABOUT AT LEAST 15-20 SPACES. This was not mentioned in the survey for potential spaces needed at any time. *The Porto Brasil site has 15-20 off-street parking spaces already. Re : Bus, Walking etc. : referred to in the survey as reducing need for parking. I don't think taking the bus is a viable option here, it runs too infrequently, every half hour. People use it to get to BART. I asked a few shop owners on the circle if their clients came by bus, none said yes. ie, vet, hair salon, antiques store, cleaners, To allocate 3% of the visitors as projected in the survey as using the bus is possible, but not reality. Maybe 1% would bus, this is not SF. The figures for parking demand in the survey need to be reviewed and adjusted. This is a local neighborhood setting and the people serviced are middle income, middle aged and above, and not inclined to using the bus nor walking far. And there is no bus coming down the hill anyway. And people are not going to walk up the hill with groceries and dry cleaning.* *The Wilbur Smith report used assumptions based on their experience in assessing similar projects and standard industry methodology. Bill Hurrell of Wilbur Smith & Associates is the same principal that signed the traffic report in 1953. W-S is a reputable traffic engineering company with an established history with the Colusa Circle area. If I were allowed to make a personal observations I could say that Wilbur Smith under-estimated the amount of neighbors that walk to the shops on Colusa or the fact that most of the merchants I brought in live in Berkeley, Albany, El Cerrito and Kensington and could easily walk to work. I have observed an employee of Semifreddi's regularly taking the bus home from work and employees of both Kensington Research and Hendrickson Chiropractic riding their bikes to work. I have also met with a patient of one of the psychotherapists who had ridden his bike to the Circle. I'm sure that if a more extensive analysis were conducted, the findings would illustrate that there is a greater use of public and other means of transportation than is apparent to Ms Stollon. I will also be adding bike racks to encourage people to ride their bikes to the Circle. Lastly, new development needs to have sensible density, a term I read in reference to development plans in Oakland. ***Sensible density implies that we are not fallimg all over ourselves searching to park our cars after a long day at work, that family and friends can park conveniently, safely and close to our home when visiting; it means not getting stressed out because you are driving in a more hazardous, accident prone area because unpredictable pedestrians, cars, bikes converging on a space with little regulation i.e. stop lights, speed bumps etc. It is apparent that Ms Stollon does not have any concept of what sensible density would imply. If she has observed most recent developments in Oakland, or for that matter Berkeley, Albany and El Cerrito, she would notice that most of those developments are of a far greater magnitude...3-4 stories or more mixed use structures of IO's or I00's of thousand square feet. If these projects are representative of'sensible density; my project of less than 10,000 square feet should hardly warrant any mention or arouse any serous concern. While I like the design of the project, the landscaping improvements, I think that a 3 story building is too much for the circle to absorb without traffic and parking • becoming hazardous and unsafe. A 2 story project is more do-able. There are near misses all the time as it is with pedestrians crossing Colusa. I have been nearly hit crossing the street to mail a letter ! With more traffic it will only increase the chances of a hit. * *I'm glad Ms Stollon likes the design and landscaping improvements The height of the building has nothing to do with traffic and parking demands. It is more the total square footage and intensity of use that would impact parking and traffic demand. Based on the Wilbur Smith Study and my track record of business brought to the Circle, the proposed parking should be more than adequate for the proposed future uses. I have always been mindful on the impact on traffic and parking in the area. I have operated a business on the Circle for 22 of the past 30 years. I am here 6 days a week and sometimes 7, and unlike my merchants, I am in my office until the late evening on occasion. Why would I want to create an untenable situation for myself? The availability of parking is an asset in attracting businesses to the Circle. Parking is readily available for merchants and their customers. I hope that you and the staff will take a very close look at this, because once it is built is can not be undone...although we have to live with the consequences. We are looking to the county to assist us in creating a viable space, and not just rubber stamping a project . Please take the time to do this right. It not only affects Kensington, but those living in EI Cerrito, Berkeley, and Albany. Sincerely, • Residents of Eldridge Ct. Marilyn Stollon, Jean Langford, Ben Clow, John Gaccione It is good that Ms. Stollon has taken the time to express her concerns about the Colusa Circle commercial area, It is my opinion that she should direct her wrath to other owners on the Circle who do not maintain their properties, have not been sensitive to traffic and parking issues, and have brought in transient merchants that have not been appropriate for the neighborhood. She should be willing to join me in eliminating blight in the area and support positive change. Rather than opposing my application, she should direct her energies to working with me to help make the Colusa Circle commercial area a better place. .,. ;psi; •rr PH ;2 Kensington Research Group t educational project design, evaluation, and resource development 384 Colusa Circle, Kensington, California 94707 Phone: 510-524-9849 Fax: 510-524-6847 Federal ID#68-0377524 Joseph C. Malloy, Ph.D. May 31, 2007 Michael Henn AIC, Planner Community Development Department County Administration Building 651 Pine Street 4`h Floor, North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 Dear Mr. Henn, I am writing on behalf of Ed Hammonds. I think that his plan to improve the Colusa Circle in Kensington will improve the area greatly. As for the traffic and parking in the area, I can say that I have had an office at 384 Colusa for the past 12 years, and have never experienced any, difficulty finding a convenient parking space. I support Ed's plan, and hope that you will not find any reason to delay the project. Thank you, Lloseph C. Malloy, Ph.D. LETTERS IN OPPOSITION OF PROJECT . 8/12/2007 Dear Mr. Henn: I am the co-owner and manager of the eight-unit apartment building located at 353 Berkeley Park Boulevard in Kensington. The building occupies the wedge-shaped lot fronting on Colusa Circle between Berkeley Park Boulevard and Oak View Avenue. Therefore the building and its tenants will be directly affected by the proposed development activities in the Colusa Circle area, including that proposed by Mr. Ed Hammonds which is the subject of a hearing on August 14. While this proposal has positive aspects, I would like to express my concern about parking issues and my belief that the plan does not make adequate provision for the impact of increased traffic and parking needs in an area that is already very congested. My building, which provides 12 open air carport spaces underneath the first floor for 8 tenants, already suffers every day and evening from unauthorized parking by non-tenants, which is caused by the current level of commercial activity on Colusa Circle. This impact is magnified by the narrowness of the public streets that surround and feed into the Circle and the density of dwellings along those streets, increasing the number of driveways per block and reducing the number of public parking spaces available per block. Excessive traffic and parking demand will therefore affect not only my apartment building, but to some extent every resident in the blocks surrounding the Circle. • I do not believe the Hammonds plan as proposed makes adequate provision for new parking spaces to support the proposed new commercial spaces and uses, and for that reason urge the Board not to approve it in its present form. Sincerely, Vida Dorroh, Manager Thors Bay Associates LLC Wednesday, August 08, 2007 10:00PM Subject: Re: colusa circle, 6/25 Dear Planning Commission, I am writing again to voice my negative view of the current Phase 3 plan proposed for the Colusa Circle. My previous letter was dated March 13, 2007. One major concern I have is that the original PUD will never be able to be built as it was approved due to the subdivision of Phase 2. This is probably a good thing as it was not in scale with a small neighborhood commercial area. The original Phase 2 was never built because as I understand it, the proposed parking structure did not "pencil out". Mr. Hammonds asserts that he needs to achieve a minimum square footage for Phase 3 or it will not "pencil out". Why should the neighborhood be forced to have a project that is out of scale with the existing retail buildings just because it does not N "pencil out" for the developer. It appears that the originally approved project was over ambitious for the Circle Neighborhood. New buildings at the Circle will be a good thing only if they are in scale with the surrounding neighborhood. The neighbors will have to live the project and our concerns about the scale of the development should be considered. Approving a three story building or a building that is too large for the parcel will set a precedent for the rest of the PUD, Kensington and the County. Where will it stop? Mr Hammonds has suggested that the neighbors should have sought him out to discuss the project. There is no logic to this. He should have offered to meet with the neighborhood to describe what he was proposing, not the other way around. How would we know he was planning anything. Nothing has been built in many years. In closing, I strongly urge you to reject the project as proposed. Sincerely, Janet Hittle 1612 Oak View Avenue (Located next to Phase 2) Kensington CA 94707 John Gaccione 12 Eldridge Court 0 7 A!=i% -7 F M ( 3 Kensington, CA 94707 510-524-2043 VELIPt';cN1 DEF{ Mr. Michael Henn Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street, 4`h Flr,NW Martinez, CA 94553-1229 August 5, 2007 Dear Mr. Henn: As a homeowner who lives a few blocks the circle, I use all of the services and drive or walk depending on my needs. Ex. I occasionally walk to the restaurant but drive to the cleaners. I am writing to provide you with my objections to the Hammonds project for the following reasons: • I am against a 3 story structure in an area where there are predominantly 2 story buildings. It will block sunlight for the stores/offices across the street on Colusa, impact sunlight for the houses on Santa Fe and does not fit in with a residential neighborhood in terms of its scale. The circle needs to be developed in a way that is thoughtful and comprehensive in planning in terms of a design that fits with the area of mixed use ie. commercial and housing. A 2 story building is more fitting with what already exists and will require less parking spots. • Secondly, I am against the size of the project because of the impact of traffic and parking on the surrounding areas. Traffic will increase in the circle, due to cars entering and leaving the circle, it is already problematic at key times of the day and evening. Two other projects are being proposed in the area, and the combined impact (safety etc.)need to be looked at carefully. • Parking is an issue and at times there is no parking in the circle; without the Chisholm lot once it gets developed, it will be more difficult to find parking close to services. Why encourage a project that will impact local homeowners in El Cerrito, Kensington and Berkeley in terms of parking? Some of the homes nearby have unusable driveways, no driveways, or too small a garage for a car and, consequently, homeowners and their family are forced to park on the street. Please conVcarefulur issues, since the impact of this is far reaching. Serely, John Gaccione J r • Ben Clow Eldridge Court 07 A UGS _7 Kensington, CA 94707 Mr. Michael Henn Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street,4th Flr, NW Martinez, CA 94553-1229 August 5, 2007 Dear Mr. Henn: I will not be able to attend the hearing regarding Hammonds project I object to the project because I am against a 3 story structure in the area, it is too large. I would be in favor of 2 stories which would limit the impact in terms of parking needs and traffic. I also do not like the idea of making Oakview a one way street with diagonal parking. I think it will create traffic jams and unsafe conditions for those parking, exiting and entering the daycare etc. • This would also encourage drivers who are entering Colusa from Sante Fe to avoid going to the circle, and to instead go up Valley Rd back to Coventry. This will put more traffic on one lane residential streets and will lead to potential accidents. I do not think there is enough parking realistically close to the project and with the other 2 projects being considered for the circle it is important not to create a traffic scene like College Avenue,which started out as a nice quiet area with accessible parking. Yours truly, Ben Clow • n ,r A/ �r 0-f* � fv f m i y jet A C n • • Dear Mr Henn, 0 I'm Jan Dederick, and I live on Santa Fe Ave (EI Cerrito) at the foot of Oak • View Ave, which exits Colusa Circle heading west. As you may know, we in the neighborhood are in dialogue with one another and with Mr. Hammonds about the impact of his plans on our neighborhood. The southwestern portion of Mr Hammonds' property, i.e. the corner of Oak View and Santa Fe Ave, is and has been for all memory, a green space inhabited by two huge scent cedars, a huge hemlock , a medium size coast oak, and their myriad four-legged and winged tenants. And a picnic table and bench which are put there by nobody knows quite whom. These trees are what one sees if one visits the site on Google Earth. I am physically sickened by the specter of a canopyless, paved car-park across the street. I prefer the oxygen the trees put out to the carbon dioxide the cars will be putting out. I prefer the breeze created by the 100 foot tall trees to the slow bake of Macadam, the radiant heatsumps of parked autos. In a conversation with Ed not long ago, he said something which hit home for me, and that is that the parking guidelines set down by the County are designed for strip-mall sorts of development, not for such self-limiting neighborhood developments as is being proposed here. As I thought about that, it rang true. The MG repair shop at the Colusa/Santa Fe intersection routinely has had eight or ten cars parked around the property 24 hours a day. The sorts of businesses Hammonds has in minds as tenants • (therapists, likely, service businesses) do not, in my opinion, warrant the high parking-to-square-footage ratio County regs require. The concern of many neighborhood people goes to the 3-storeyness of Ed's design. They accept the parking regs as etched in stone and therefore the green-space's demise as non-negotiable. It occurs to me that, if the off- street parking regs could be viewed through a different lens, and as a result be diminished, then all could be happy. That is, if the considerable cost of felling the trees, and leveling and paving the green space, were to drop out of the equation, then perhaps the need for a third storey to cover said costs would drop out; the neighborhood could then retain the inestimable benefit of greenness amidst the concrete of the development. So, Mr. Henn, my question to you is this: what is the wiggle-room on these parking specs? What if anything can we as neighborhood people do to soften them, thus saving money and grace and life? I expect that if you were to come and see our circle in person, you would see what I mean. Is that possible, sir? For you to come and meet with us here in real life? I thank you for your time and attention, and look forward to your reply. Jan Dederick 121 Santa Fe Ave • EI Cerrito 94530 New"" Reply'Forward *ve Follow, Up` Tools ; „ ,X • From: "judy tart" <jdytart@sbcglobal.net> To: <mhenn@cd.cccounty.us> Date: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 06:44PM Subject: Proposed Colusa Development Dear Mr. Henn, I have some serious concerns about the proposed developments on and near the Colusa Circle in Kensington. I live two blocks away on Visalia Avenue, yet our neighborhood is already impacted by excess traffic using our street as a short-cut instead of the increasingly crowded Colusa Avenue. People unable to find on-street parking on Colusa also use our street, making it hard for . property owners to park there. Diagonal parking is proposed by the developers on Oak View on two sides of the circle. Oak View is a narrow street, similar to Visalia Avenue, which is often essentially cut down to one lane when cars are parked on both sides. Delivery trucks garbage trucks, etc. , of course, find it even more difficult to maneuver in this situation than cars. I cannot see how diagonal parking could be made to work on these streets without further clogging them. It could be difficult and even dangerous for parents and toddlers using the day-care center on Oak View with this extra traffic and difficulty of parking for dropping off and picking up their children. I notice that there is a proposal to extend the sidewalk area far out into Colusa Avenue on each side where it enters the Colusa Circle. There is currently a bus stop right at this point. In addition, narrowing what has become a rather densely travelled street right at this point will impede and back up traffic, further impacting our quiet neighborhoods. I cannot imagine what purpose such an extension of the sidewalk could possibly serve. • Both the proposed buildings are to be three stories high. I feel this is • overwhelming and out of character for the rest of the area. It will loom over and block the views of the modest neighboring one-story dwellings. Last, but not least, I question the viability of adding so much retail space to this neighborhood area. A restaurant (formely Narsai's) has sat empty and deteriorating for ten years or more; other businesses fail with regularity on the circle. At the very least, there should be some input from the surrounding area as to what types of businesses we might patronize, and how the extra traffic and parking which could be expected can be mitigated. How can we, as concerned neighbors, be kept informed of meetings and decisions impacting our neighborhood? There has been nothing in the papers or other media letting us know of these changes. I hope you will take these considerations into account as you make your decisions on this proposed construction. Thank you, Judy Tart, RN • 1675 Visalia Ave. Berkeley, CA 94707 • Michael Henn/CD/CCC To jcisn@cd.cccounty.us 06/26/2007 09:37 AM cc • bcc Subject Fw: colusa circle, 6/25 -----Forwarded by Michael Henn/CD/CCC on 06/26/2007 09:36AM ----- To: mhenn@cd.cccounty.us, rodney paul Paul <Rodney.Paul@schwab.corn>, Ray Barraza <raybarraza@gmail.com>, "JGioia@bos.co.contra-costa.ca.us" <sam@dgates.com>, Larry Gossett <larry@gossettce.com>, Jerry Fahy<jfahy@pw.cccounty.us> From: Marilyn Stollon <mstollon@earth link.net> Date: 06/25/2007 04:50PM cc: pic:ante.catering@sbcglobal.net, Amber<Virtual.Amber@gmail.com>, Barbara L Haux <barbara.haux@cbsoutdoor.com>, Beth Johnson <Beth.Johnson@ceb.ucop.edu>, bjctrains@aol.com, Dan Lunderville <danlunderville@gmail.com>, dwnlynch@pacbell.net, dianehlow@yahoo.com, dp@wiredbay.com, DrLSchwartzburd@aol.com, Eileen Nottoli <enottoli@allenmatkins.com>, Ellen Mills <ellen_mills@sbcglobal.net>, Ernie <ernie@view360imaging.com>, Gabriella Gordon-Clark <ggtwo@hotmail.com>, Gary Low <m_g_low@pacbell.net>, Grazina Bivins <gbivins@mcguire.com>, Holly Haugh <hhaugh@sbcglobal.net>, "J Folger-Brown (Toni)" <jfolgerbrown@comcast.net>,jandeder <jandeder@netwiz.net>,jchittle@yahoo.com, Jenny Schaffell <jschaffell@yahoo.com>, Jessica Lorenz <jessie.lorenz@gmail.com>, Jody or JAZ Zaitlin <jaz@LMi.net>, Joe Koontz <hanashiaru@yahoo.com>, John Joseph Clark <john-jc@comcast.net>, leesaf@pacbell.net, Lorrie Gray <lorrie.gray@earth link.net>, Lorrie Gray& Seth Chazin <chazingray@earthlink.net>, marilyn stollon <mstolion@earthlink.net>, mary mark <wegorn@sbcglobal.net>, Nancy McClure <nlmcclure@sbcglobal.net>, Nicholas Wellington <nickwell@pacbell.net> Nick Paige <npaige@berkeley.edu>, Paul Mills <paul_d_mills@sbcglobal.net>, • Rita Haberlin <rhaberlin@aol.com>, Rob Gilman <rgilman@garciaandassociates.com>, Robert E Giusti <randbgiusti@juno.com>, robnjudith@sbcglobal.net, sschaffell@gmail.com, sarah_paul@biorad.com, scstroh@sbcglobal.net, Thomas Foley <thomasefoley@gmail.com>, Tim Bonnet <timwbonnet@yahoo.com>, "vrcdsvob@vba.va.goV' <timhoyer@comcast.net>, Tracey Bonnet <traceybonnet@sbcglobal.net>, Vance Martin <underredwood@yahoo.com> Subject: colusa circle, 6/25 Dear Mr. Henn: I am responding to Mr. Hammonds letter to you regarding my assessment of the new development. My views are not mine alone, but are shared by many who read the traffic survey and who live, work, travel to or through the area. What I wrote in my letter and what I presented at the KMAC meeting, was in conjunction and consultation with other Colusa Circle Neighborhood group members. Presently, a preliminary count of the neighborhood petition according to Rodney Paul is over 125 individuals who live and work in the area ie. Kensington, E1 Cerrito, Albany, Berkeley. The circle borders on all of these cities. There are many more who have not turned in their petition to Rodney Paul who is spearheading and coordinating that effort. I will attach the petition info for you to see what we are asking the county to be mindful of. Mr. Hammonds I understand brought this project up in 1983, long before I lived here, but my neighbor Jean Langford was one who opposed it along with many others. The organized tumult in the neighborhoods ( El Cerrito, Kensington, Albany) was enough to shut • down the project for 20 years. He did not prevail and build his multi phase plan. At least this plan is a bit more tasteful. • Unfortunately, the way the system is set up , many of us are not in the 300' range to be notified, his building plans are not in the local papers and so MANY of us were unaware of these plans until recently! ! ! In fact , many of those who signed the petition have not heard of any of this, were upset they didnt know and are concerned. No one is against development, we all want tasteful design, interesting stores etc. BUT no one wants a Walnut Square, 4th Street, or College Avenue, Main Street, Walnut Creek situation. Planning is everything and good research makes for good planning. I do research periodically for litigated cases, and know how each side can phrase questions to get certain results. The key is to do honest, impartial research, not easy to achieve when it is a "hired gun **It is important to have traffic and parking research that is objective and fair. That is why the neighborhood is so suspicious of. the parking survey and wants the county to do its own research. . .and be sure these developers get it right. There are now 3 project proposals for the circle and somebody has to see the big picture in terms of safety: auto, pedestrian, bicyclists etc. A comprehensive parking/traffic survey needs to be done to encompass the 3 projects. That is what is requested in the petition as well. How can you trust a survey that doesn't look closely and address the potential problems that parking on both sides of Berkeley Park Blvd would create?? If cars park there, it will create a steep one lane, 2 way street! very unsafe. . . • For my research, on office occupancy, I went to officefinder.com that has calculators for commercial real estate and to estimate tenants/employee use of space. I just plugged in the numbers from Mr. Hammonds info on size of buildings, square footage etc. I edited it out of my letter and presentation, along with other detail due to time and space limitations for my presentation. *While it is not large scale compared to many projects Mr. Hammonds is large for the circle, most people when asked re the petition object to 3 stories, and the loss of the trees, light etc. *With unrented space it is hard to determine what the .needs will be, I made assumptions based on current usage in the circle, storefronts used as offices or retail space. *Traffic and parking need to be addressed together; as both impact safety. In the early evening people are going to restaurants and bar/ restaurant parking and others are passing through the circle as Mr. Hammonds indicated. This, is precisely the reason the traffic is an issue and questions of safety arise, because commuters are blasting through the circle, making it more prone to traffic /pedestrian/ cyclist accidents. (There are no traffic lights in the area, only stop signs) *There was discussion at the KMAC meetings whether the county would do a traffic and parking study, it was my and others' understanding that this was to be recommended, since the parking study did not cover traffic thoroughly. This can be clarified by KMAC if I was in error ( Ray Barraza is cc'd. ) *Regarding parking at Porto Brasil, the amount of parking is in question since we do not know the impact of Mr. David's new plans, and all the more reason for the county to review the projects together in terms of impact. *Interesting that Mr. Hammonds says he is there 6-7 days a week, this is in contradiction to what he said at the last KMAC meeting with a smile, when he said he was there, when he wasnt elsewhere a few days/ hours a week. While he has good tenants, that is not necessarily a prediction of what is to be in the future, what if he sells? We are urging the county to take a good look at these projects and to be sure that the information on traffic and parking is thorough and accurately gathered. Again_ lets get it right the first time, there are no do-overs in this situation. Sincerely, Marilyn Stollon Flyerre Petition-l.pdf • • Major Development s on Colusa Circle Major new commercial development has been proposed for the Colusa Circle. A group of residents is forming a neighborhood association to promote common-sense recommendations to keep this area attractive and livable for all. We are currently circulating a petition with the following text and invite concerned residents of Kensington, EI Cerrito, Berkeley and Albany to sign it. We want to ensure that Contra Costa County planners hear our input when considering these plans. The decisions being made will affect the character of the Colusa Circle neighborhood for many years to come. Get involved now! Email ColusaCirclePgmail.com or call Rodney Paul at 510-526-8949 to learn-more-about-the-proposed developments-and where to sign the petition. • We are concerned citizens who live near and have an interest in the development of the Colusa Circle. We desire sensible development that is in harmony with the current neighborhood. We believe the proposed development for Phase 2 (401 Colusa Ave.) and Phase 3 (triangle building bordered by Colusa, Oak View and Santa Fe) should be scaled back to minimize the impacts in the Colusa Circle area on 1. Traffic 2. Pedestrian and cyclist safety 3. Parking 4. View and light access of bordering properties. We therefore advocate the following changes to these proposed developments: • Limiting building heights to two stories • Providing reasonable parking that covers peak periods, including the late afternoon and early evening periods • Protecting view and light access in accordance with existing laws • Requiring a traffic study • Considering Phase 2 and Phase 3 as a whole, addressing cumulative impacts from the two proposed projects • Changing building and landscape design to minimize negative impacts on properties in the surrounding areas. • NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION is We are concerned citizens who live near and have an interest in the development of the Colusa Circle. We desire sensible development that is in harmony with the current neighborhood. We believe the proposed development for Phase 2 (401 Colusa Ave.) and Phase 3 (triangle building bordered by Colusa, Oak View and Santa Fe) should be scaled back to minimize the impacts in the Colusa Circle area on: 1 . Traffic 2. Pedestrian and cyclist safety 3. Parking 4. View and light access of bordering properties. We therefore advocate the following changes to the proposed developments: • Limiting building heights to two stories • Providing reasonable parking that covers peak periods, including the late afternoon and early evening periods • Protecting view and light access in accordance with existing laws • Requiring a traffic study • Considering Phase 2 and Phase 3 as a whole, addressing cumulative • impacts from the two proposed projects • Changing building and landscape design to minimize negative impacts on properties in the surrounding areas. Name Address Signature Please fax signed petitions to 270-738-297. To be placed on our email list, send an email to ColusaCircle@amail.com. Via email 6/26/07 Dear Mr. Henn: I just want to confirm what Marilyn says about the response to our neighborhood petition. We currently have 150-200 signatures and are getting a strong response to our statement. We will continue gathering signatures before the meeting to discuss the development. Mr. Hammond is certainly entitled to his opinions and to advocate his position. I don't agree that our group is spreading falsehoods and hysteria about his project, as I believe he stated in his recent letter to you. I think the statement on our petition speaks for itself and is a reasonable position. We have been making copies of the plans for his project and the one at 401 'Colusa available to concerned neighbors and allowing them to draw their own conclusions. Simply put, our position is that the scope of these projects is out of charcter with the neighborhood. The 1983 PUD had provisions, including a parking structure, to deal with the impact on residents that are no longer part of the current plan, and that is why we feel we are within our rights to question the current proposal. I-appreciate-your consideration- of-cur-views- as-p r-t bf�-t�e p--finning process. Sincerely, Rodney Paul • 6 - 14 - 0 -,7 Community Development, Contra Costa County Dear Mr. Henn: • As you know there are growing concerns in the neighborhood, regarding the 2 projects proposed for the Colusa Circle: Hammonds office/stores proposal and the condo's /stores proposal. Now we understand, Narsai David will be proposing a project on the Circle at the site of his former restaurant. This may compound the problem in. terms of traffic congestion, safety for pedestrians, bicyclists,parking etc. The neighborhood , those in Kensington, E1 Cerrito, Albany and Berkeley who live nearby and are' affected by the Circle development are- gathering signatures for a petition to the County, to request that these developments be looked at very closely and their total impact on the Circle and those who live around it be evaluated. Many people are not aware that this is being proposed. Because this Circle is close to so many towns, it impacts both Alameda and CCCty residents. For example, for your consideration, but not raised at the meetings: the traffic survey indicates there is a lot of parking on Berkeley Park Blvd (near the Pub) , that narrow steep 2 way street becomes ONE lane when cars are legally parked on both sides of the street in the afternoon / evening as people come home. If it gets filled all day with these new projects, it will become another dangerous street with cars_and_trucksvying with each other to-get-by. Is-anyone-aware-of—- that?? Again, we are requesting that the county be vigilant looking out for our best interests, safety issues, and that a comprehensive review be • taken of development in our area, since we will have to live with it for years to come. There is no reason to build to the max and create another traffic jammed area. ***Can you tell us when the Hammondsproject is scheduled for a hearing? Sincerely, Homeowners of Eldridge Ct. Marilyn Stollon John Gaccione Jean Langford Ben Clow • Michael Henn/CD/CCC To jcisn@cd.cccounty.us 06/07/2007 10:48 AM cc bcc Subject Fw: parking study, Colusa Circle Project -----Forwarded by Michael Henn/CD/CCC on 06/07/2007 1 147A ----- To: Larry Gossett <larry@gossettce.com>, mhenn@cd.cccounty.us, Rodney Paul <Rodney.Paul@schwab.com>, Jerry Fahy <jfahy@pw.cccounty.us>, whan@pw.co.contra-costa.ca.us From: Marilyn Stollon <mstollon@earth link.net> Date: 05/30/2007 05:13PM cc: Barbara L Haux <barbara.haux@cbsoutdoor.com>, Beth Johnson <Beth.Johnson@ceb.ucop.edu>, bjctrains@aol.com, dwnlynch@pacbell.net, Diane Low <dianehlow@yahoo.com>, dp@wiredbay.com, DrLSchwartzburd@aol.com, Eileen Nottoli <enottoli@allenmatkins.com>, Ellen Mills <ellen_mills@sbcgloba1.net>, Ernie <ernie@view360imaging.com>, Gabriella Gordon-Clark <ggtwo@hotmail.com>, Gary Low <m_g_low@pacbell.net>, Grazina Bivins <gbivins@mcguire.com>, Holly Haugh <hhaugh@sbcglobal.net>, "J Folger-Brown (Toni)" <jfolgerbrown@comcast.net>, Jan <Jandedr@netwiz.net>,jandeder@netwiz.net, Janet Hittle <jhittle@TGP-INC.com>, Jaz Zaitlin <jaz@limi.net>,jchittle@yahoo.com, Jenny Schaffell <jschaffell@yahoo.com>, Jessica Lorenz <jessie.lorenz@gmail.com>, Joe Koontz<hanashiaru@yahoo.com>, John Joseph Clark <john-jo@comcast.net>,mary mark<wegorn@sbcglobal.net>, Nancy McClure <nlmcclure@sbcgloba1.net>, Nicholas Wellington <nickwell@pacbell.net>, Nick Paige <npaige@berkeley.edu>, Paul Mills <paul_d_mills@sbcgloba1.net>, Rita Haberlin <rhaberlin@aol.com>, Rob Gilman <rgilman@garciaandassociates.com>, Robert E Giusti <randbgiusti@juno.com>, robnjudith@sbcglobal.net, Sandy <sanhodo@yahoo.com>, sarah_paul@biorad.com, Thomas Foley • <thomasefoley@gmail.com>, timhoyer@comcast.net, Tom Bonnet <timwbonnet@yahoo.com>, Vance Martin <underredwood@yahoo.com>, ilvcoimbra@aol.corri, JGioia@bos.cccounty.us Subject: parking study, Colusa Circle Project Re: Parking Survey, traffic issues for the Colusa Circle Development Dear Mr. Gossett: I carefully reviewed the survey and there appear to be errors and omissions in it. I presented this information at the KMAC mtg where there were ongoing objections by the neighborhood to the traffic issues,unsafe intersections, not enough parking, large scale of the project for the area, lack of consideration for how this in synergy with another project will affect the circle. The figures for occupancy/and demand for parking spaces quoted in this report are not accurate and the omission of these businesses makes the circle appear to be underutilized in terms of parking when it is not.. This is because the spaces are in the process of being rented out and the parking spaces they will use were not counted in the survey. #1. One of the office spaces currently being renovated by Mr. Hammonds was NOT accurately. counted in the demand for parking. Right now the building on the corner of the circle at Oakview directly across from the Bistro is being renovated for a new tenant. IF it was acknowledged in the report, then it would add at least 3-4 employees and any number of clients. That space will be used shortly by a busy chiropractor who is currently doing business right off the circle. • His space will in turn be vacant and could be rented out for commercial use, requiring parking. The net result is these 2 spaces increase the parking demand and add 8 employees and 8 or more clients for the • 2 spaces..a total of 10-16 or more parking spaces will be needed in the circle shortly. They are not counted in the parking survey. #2. The flower shop, owned by someone else, is being renovated and it too can hold 3-4 or more staff depending on the use whether it is retail or office plus customers. That was not included or acknowledged in the survey in terms of demand. Add 4-7 spaces for staff and clients. ***This comes to a total of 14-23 additional full & part time SPACES THAT WILL BE NEEDED SHORTLY WHEN THESE 2-3 commercial spaces are in use for employees and customers. #3. The county requires 37 off street parking spots, with 13 supplied by Mr. Hammonds. I researched how many employees can work in the new project and it ranges from 28- to over 35 depending on the layout of the office i.e. efficient, typical or spacious. With the high price of square footage, I would anticipate that an employer will pack people into these spaces and there probably will be more than 35 employees looking for parking, not counting customers. What is allocated by zoning is not finite and there can be more employees in those spaces. 37 spaces is not really enough and will really clog traffic at 5 pm when there is an exodus from the building. #5 Retail stores are in Hammonds plan, yet the survey only goes until 4 pm and stores stay open until 7 or later and are open on the w/e, and that is when the circle is extremely busy. This survey does not address the parking and TRAFFIC demands from__4-7 pm when the circle is full of people coming home, quickly traversing the circle from Bkly to EI Cerrito, or stopping to shop, go to the pub, dinner. ***At the KMAC meeting, last night the council members recommended that the county do a traffic survey to study the impact on the Circle of Hammonds project and the 401 Colusa project which is in • process of being re- designed/reviewed etc. (R. Hernandez is the planner at the cty, as I recall). I hope this will occur. #5. The last unoccupied space is Porto Brasil Restaurant, a large space that is ready to rent, but has been vacant and potentially could be rented at any time without the need for any approval by KMAC etc. . This existing space would sharply increase the need for parking and of course add to the traffic demand. THINK ABOUT AT LEAST 15-20 SPACES. This was not mentioned in the survey for potential spaces needed at any time. Re : Bus Walking etc. : referred ed to in the survey as reducing need for parking . I don't think taking the bus is a viable option here, it runs too infrequently, every half hour. People use it to get to BART. I asked a few shop owners on the circle if their clients came by bus, none said yes. ie. vet, hair salon, antiques store, cleaners, To allocate 3% of the visitors as projected in the survey as using the bus is possible, but not reality Maybe 1% would bus, this is not SF . The figures for parking demand in the survey need to be reviewed and adjusted. This is a local neighborhood setting and the people serviced are middle income, middle aged and above, and not inclined to using the bus nor walking far. And there is no bus coming down the hill anyway. And people are not going to walk up the hill with groceries and dry cleaning. Lastly, new development needs to have sensible density, a term I read in reference to development plans in Oakland. ***Sensible density implies that we are not falling all over ourselves searching to park our cars after a long day at work, that family and friends can park conveniently, safely and close to our home when visiting; it means not getting stressed out because you are driving in a more hazardous, accident prone • area because unpredictable pedestrians, cars, bikes converging on a space with little regulation i.e. stop lights, speed bumps etc. • While I like the design of the project, the landscaping improvements, I think that a 3 story building is too much for the circle to absorb without traffic and parking becoming hazardous and unsafe A 2 story project is more do-able. There are near misses all the time as it is with pedestrians crossing Colusa . I have been nearly hit crossing the street to mail a letter ! With more traffic it will only increase the chances of a hit. I hope that you and the staff will take a very close look at this, because once it is built is can not be undone...although we have to live with the consequences. We are looking to the county to assist us in creating a viable space, and not just rubber stamping a project . Please take the time to do this right. It not only affects Kensington, but those living in EI Cerrito, Berkeley, and Albany. Sincerely, Residents of Eldridge Ct. Marilyn Stollon, Jean Langford, Ben Clow, John Gaccione • • Contra Costa Planning Department 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 • 13 March 2007 Attn: Mike Henn Dear Mr. Henn, I am writing to comment on Phase 3 of the Colusa Development. Mr. Hammonds and his architect presented a new plan, which the KMAC had not seen and which was not on file at the library. He has not prepared the requested traffic study. This shows a sense of arrogance and that he does not have to follow the official submittal and review process in place in Kensington and the County. Mr. Hammonds asked that the Phase 3 plan be reviewed separately from the previous plans. The Conditions of Approval states, "Prior to commencement of Phase 3 of the project, there shall be a review of anticipated impacts of Phase 3 and 4 by the Zoning Administrator."The new plan shows a one-way Oak View Avenue between the Circle and Sante Fe with a three-story building. When questioned about the new one-way plan, he said that is what is approved. That may be true but what is approved is a two-story building. Phase one is the only phase that was completed as approved. Phase two has been subdivided and sold to two separate owners. The PUD was approved in 1983. The plan can never be built as approved and should be required to be re- reveiwed based on the new plan. A one-way Oak View will force all traffic to make the turn onto Colusa at the end of Sante Fe. This intersection is very large and already dangerous because through traffic on Colusa does not slow down. The three-story building does not park and it is not in scale with the existing retail and neighborhood. Mr. Hammonds plan counts the on-street parking, which in reality should be counted toward the entire circle development. The original Phase 2 plan was to provide parking for Phase two and three. Now the plans that are being presented for Phase two by the new owner are under parked. Currently the vacant lot of • Phase 2 is used for parking for the Circle businesses. No one has been able to say where these cars and the additional cars that will be visiting the new commercia17 spaces will go. They obviously will take the few on street parking spaces in the neighborhood. There was much discussion at the end of the meeting about the fact that Narsai David may be planning something on his property and the current owner of Phase two has been working on getting a plan approved. Mr. Edmunds asked the audience to trust him because he has had good long term tenants. Why trust him when he no longer owns the earlier phases. He acts like each Phase is a completely separate entity and he should be able to do whatever he wants to do because he is such a "nice" guy. In reality each phase was to relate to the other. It makes no sense that the old PUD plan is still viable when only Phase one was built per the plan. He was my neighbor until he sold the house that held his offices. He never provided me with any neighborly courtesies of notifying me of his construction/demolition projects so that I might close my windows. In closing, I feel that the Circle development should not be approved as currently being proposed. The project is not in scale with the neighborhood, does not park, and changing Oak View to one way between Sante Fe and the Circle will have a negative impact on the traffic patterns in the neighborhood. Mr. Hammonds should stick with the approved square footage for Phase 3. The plan has changed so much since 1985 there is very little resemblance to the approved PUD. Sincerely, Janet Hittle 1612 Oak View Avenue Kensington, CA 94707 • 8/4/2007 • Mr. Mike Henn Contra Costa Community Development Dept. 651 Pine Street , Martinez , CA Re: County File#DP033047 Dear Mr. Henn: Please add this comment to the public record regarding the consideration of the proposal by Mr. Ed Hammonds regarding County File#DP033047 for the modification of the existing development plan. We are greatly concerned about the proposed traffic and parking modifications required to accommodate the proposed project. As bicycle commuters, we frequently ride our bicycles through the Colusa Circle intersection and on the short section of Oakview Avenue between the circle and Santa Fe Avenue in both directions. Our understanding of the proposed project is that it would include the conversion of this section of Oakview Avenue to a one-way, west-bound street, and that diagonal parking would replace the existing parallel parking on Oakview and Santa Fe Avenues adjacent to the subject property. We object to both of these changes because they will compromise the safety of bicyclists traversing the area. • Both of these modifications are included as part of the proposed project to compensate for the fact that the project sponsor has NOT provided adequate off-street parking as required by County regulations. The sponsor has included on-street changes on public property to meet the parking demand anticipated to be generated by his project, which will cause safety hazards especially to bicyclists as described below. Per the sponsor's parking study(Wilbur Smith Associates, 2007), under Contra Costa zoning regulations, "the proposed project would be required to provide 37 off-street parking spaces, including 27 spaces for the office uses, and 10 spaces for the retail uses." However, the sponsor is only proposing to provide 13 off-street parking spaces. Based upon the limited parking survey conducted by Wilbur Smith Associates, the project would generate the demand for 22.3 spaces. The sponsor would not even meet this reduced demand with off-street parking as required by Contra Costa regulations. Moreover, the parking study did not adequately assess existing and anticipated parking demand in the neighborhood for three reasons. First, some existing parking demand is absorbed by the informal use of the vacant lot on the corner of Colusa and Ocean View which was not addressed in the study. When and if that site is developed (as we understand is currently proposed), that off-street parking will not be available. Second, there were several vacant commercial properties in the neighborhood at the time the survey was conducted. The survey should have evaluated increased parking demand from those properties as currently zoned because they could become occupied at any time without additional County action. Finally, the survey was conducted between lam and 4 • pm which does not include the late afternoon traffic of the return commute which typically occurs in this area between 5 and 6:30 pm. • Because of the proponent's need to provide parking for his project, he has proposed the on-street conversion of parallel parking to diagonal parking which will greatly diminish the visibility of bicyclists to motorists pulling out of the parking stalls and reduce bicycling safety. The increased safety hazard to oncoming motorists, not bicyclists, is acknowledged in the parking study commissioned by Mr. Hammonds. On page 11, that study suggested that, "the project sponsor may wish to include some special pavement or signage as a cautionary notice alerting traveling motorists that vehicles will be pulling out of diagonal spaces and into the traveling lane." This suggested mitigation measure would NOT provide any additional safety for bicyclists. The conversion of two-way Oakview Avenue to a one-way street will force traffic approaching the circle from the west, including bicyclists, to continue north on Santa Fe to the intersection with Colusa, then to turn right on Colusa. This change would force cyclists on to Colusa Avenue with increased commercial traffic. We therefore oppose the project as currently proposed. We would not object to the project if all project-induced parking demand were accommodated on-site consistent with County zoning regulations. Thank you for your consideration. • Jody Zaitlin and Mark Nienberg 297 Berkeley Park Blvd. Kensington , CA 94707 • New Reply - Forward Move Follow Up Tools'-, X � ♦ ' i ' ? From: DrLSchwartzburd@aol.com To: MHenn@cd.cccounty.us, mstollon@earthlink.net cc: mhenn@cd.cccounty.us, Rodney.Paul@schwab.com, raybarraza@gmail.com, sam@dgates.com, larry@gossettce.com, jfahy@pw.cccounty.us, pica nte.catering @sbcglobal.net, Virtual.Amber@gmail.com, barbara.haux@cbsoutdoor.com, Beth.Johnson@ceb.ucop.edu, Bjctrains@aol.com, danlunderville@gmail.com, dwnlynch@pacbell.net, dianehlow@yahoo.com, dp@wiredbay.com, enottoli@allenmatkins.com, ellen_mills@sbcglobal.net, ernie@view360imaging.com, ggtwo@hotmail.com, m_g_low@pacbell.net, gbivins@mcguire.com, hhaugh@sbcglobal.net, jfolgerbrown@comcast.net, jandeder@netwiz.net, jchittle@yahoo.com, jschaffell@yahoo.com, jessie.lorenz@gmail.com, jaz@LMi.net, hanashiaru@yahoo.com, john-jc@comcast.net, leesaf@pacbell.net, lorrie.gray@earthlink.net, chazingray@earthlink.net, wegorn@sbcglobal.net, nlmcclure@sbcglobal.net, nickwell@pacbell.net, npaige@berkeley.edu, paul_d_mills@sbcglobal.net, Rhaberlin@aol.com, rgilman@garciaandassociates.com, randbgiusti@juno.com, robnjudith@sbcglobal.net, sschaffell@gmail.com, sarah_paul@biorad.com, scstroh@sbcglobal.net, thomasefoley@gmail.com, timwbonnet@yahoo.com, timhoyer@comcast.net, traceybonnet@sbcglobal.net, underredwood@yahoo.com Date: Thursday, August 02, 2007 08:48PM Subject:: Re: colusa circle, 6/25 Dear Mr Henn, • I am writing in support of the petition circulated by Mr. Rodney Paul, and the recent letter to you from Mrs Marilyn Stollon. In addition to the other concerns expressed, I believe that plans for a 3 story building are entirely out of proportion for a small intimate commercial area nestled into what is clearly a residential area. I strongly oppose the despoiling of our neighborhood proposed by the plans under your consideration. Leonard Schwartzburd, Ph.D. 511 Coventry Rd. Kensington, CA 94707 Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com . • http://lnmail l.co.contra-costa.ca.us/mail/inhenn.nsf/($Inbox)/6FE4A9CAC386145A882573... 8/6/2007 0 0 I NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION • W r We are concerned citizens who live near and have an interest in the development of the Colusa Circle. We desire sensible development that is in harmony with the current neighborhood. We believe the proposed development for Phase 2 (401 Colusa Ave.) and Phase 3 (triangle building bordered by Colusa, Oak View and Santa Fe) should be scaled back to minimize the impacts in the Colusa Circle area on: 1. Traffic 2. Pedestrian and cyclist safety 3. Parking 4. View and light access of bordering properties. We therefore advocate the following changes to the proposed developments: • Limiting building heights to two stories • Providing reasonable parking that covers peak periods, including the late afternoon and early evening periods • Protecting view and light access in accordance with existing laws • Requiring a traffic study • Considering Phase 2 and Phase 3 as a whole, addressing cumulative • impacts from the two proposed projects • Changing building and landscape design to minimize negative impacts on properties in the surrounding areas. Name Address Signature U I ►meg �� I} I^n a C Cj v �/�/� �'e/� (/ ✓ �C �-�- � -- Doo 6S Met '�i ' V1 r \jt W r\ E a �)4 I r UC-4--11E l 3 a Z Cu S S c bc—e �zc&--( �ZtC�i g- N II 11 F.-I2 I� D (u ;1;"e\J'T12 y -f,J.J Kr.110�)^yfv Please fax signed petitions to 270-738-2597. To be placed on our email list, send an email to ColusaCircle@gmail.com. • NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION • We are concerned citizens who live near and have an interest in the development of the Colusa Circle. We desire sensible development that is in harmony with the current neighborhood. We believe the proposed development for Phase 2 (401 Colusa Ave.) and Phase 3 (triangle building bordered by Colusa, Oak View and Santa Fe) should be scaled back to minimize the impacts in the Colusa Circle area on: 1 . Traffic 2. Pedestrian and cyclist safety 3. Parking 4. View and light access of bordering properties. We therefore advocate the following changes to the proposed developments: • Limiting building heights to two stories • Providing reasonable parking that covers peak periods, including the late afternoon and early evening periods • Protecting view and light access in accordance with existing laws • Requiring a traffic study • • Considering Phase 2 and Phase 3 as a whole, addressing cumulative impacts from the two proposed projects • Changing building and landscape design to minimize negative impacts on properties in the surrounding areas. Name Address �� Signature it )`�� I31��Au C LI cLi)iRiuG C- T-- c,4,1 5: f � f 3 <<a ZZ �. A Z Lllj/L/ C� /-,-��--LfL Please fax signed petitions to 270-738-2597. To be placed on our email list, send an email to ColusaCircle@gmail.com. • NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION We are concerned citizens who live near and have an interest in the development of the Colusa Circle. We desire sensible development that is in harmony with the current neighborhood. We believe the proposed development for Phase 2 (401 Colusa Ave.) and Phase 3 (triangle building bordered by Colusa, Oak View and Santa Fe) should be scaled back to minimize the impacts in the Colusa Circle area on: 1. traffic 2. pedestrian and cyclist safety 3. parking, and 4. view and light access of bordering properties. We therefore advocate the following changes to the proposed developments: ► limiting building heights to two stories ► providing reasonable parking that covers peak periods, including the late afternoon and early evening periods ► protecting view and light access in accordance with existing laws ► requiring a traffic study ► considering Phase 2 and Phase 3 as a whole, addressing cumulative impacts from the two proposed projects, and ► changing building and landscape design to minimize negative impacts on properties in the surrounding areas. Name Address Signature �Mi ga", kk) ��'-G-� �'�-'6 ��'� VGI f T'�f t-c,✓ {}�L/� �--r�t p,�.6.z � P'"`-.�"7 `Z- � "___�/ Please fax,signed petitions to 270-738-2597. To be placed on our email list, send an email to ColusaCircleggmail.com. NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION We are concerned citizens who live near and have an interest in the development of the Colusa Circle. We desire sensible development that is in harmony with the current neighborhood. I We believe the proposed development for,Phase 2 (401 Colusa Ave.) and Phase 3 (triangle building bordered by C01usa, Oak View and Santa Fe) should be scaled back to minimize the impacts in the Colusa Circle area on: 1. Traffic 2. Pedestrian and cyclist safety 3. Parking 4. View and light access of bordering properties. We therefore advocate the following changes to the proposed developments: • Limiting building heights to two stories • Providing reasonable parking that covers peak periods, including the late afternoon and early evening periods • Protecting view and light access in accordance with existing laws • Requiring a traffic study • Considering Phase 2 and Phase 3 as a whole, addressing cumulative impacts from the two proposed projects • Changing building and landscape design to minimize negative impacts on properties in the surrounding areas. Name Address Signature 04 H . I, v. Please fax signed petitions to 270-738-2597. To be placed on our email list, send an email to ColusaCircle@gmail.com. — N f � NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION We are concerned citizens who live near and have an interest in the development of the Colusa Circle. We desire sensible development that is in harmony with the current neighborhood. We believe the proposed development for Phase 2 401 Colusa Ave. and Phase 3 (triangle building bordered by Colusa, Oak View and Santa Fe) should be scaled back to minimize the impacts in the Colusa Circle area on: 1 . Traffic 2. Pedestrian and cyclist safety 3. Parking i 4. View and light access of bordering properties. We therefore advocate the following changes to the proposed developments: • Limiting building heights to two stories • Providing reasonable parking that covers peak periods, including the late afternoon and early evening periods • Protecting view and light access in accordance with existing laws • Requiring a traffic study • Considering Phase 2 and Phase 3 as a whole, addressing cumulative impacts from the two proposed projects • Changing building and landscape design to minimize negative impacts on properties in the surrounding areas. Name Address Signature / I'C, j A Off-l t,/,f e6 Ae, -7�zC GL��r r?iZl��j � u , �( sk'/� ✓ 7 '6r JUCO'1�1 G LZ, Please fax signed petitions to 270-738-2597. To be placed on our email list, send an email to ColusaCircle@gmail.com. I i NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION We are concerned citizens who live near and have an interest in the development of the Colusa Circle. We desire sensible development that is in harmony with the current neighborhood. We believe the proposed development for,Phase 2 (401 Colusa Ave.) and Phase 3 (triangle building bordered by Colusa, Oak View and Santa Fe) should be scaled back to minimize the impacts in the Colusa Circle area on: 1. Traffic 2. Pedestrian and cyclist safety 3. Parking 4. View and light access of bordering properties. We therefore advocate the following changes to the proposed developments: • Limiting building heights to two stories • Providing reasonable parking that covers peak periods, including the late afternoon and early evening periods • Protecting view and light access in accordance with existing laws • Requiring a traffic study • Considering Phase 2 and Phase 3 as a whole, addressing cumulative impacts from the two proposed projects • Changing building and landscape des�'gn to minimize negative impacts on properties in the surrounding areas. Name Address Signature - r,.�-- OA- i 33 a A/T Please fax signed petitions to 270-738-2597. To be placed on our email list, send an email to ColusaCircle@,gmail.com. I I NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION i We are concerned citizens who live near and have an interest in the development of the Colusa Circle. We desire sensible development that is in harmony with the current neighborhood. We believe the proposed development for,Phase 2 (401 Colusa Ave.) and Phase 3 (triangle building bordered by Colusa, Oak View and Santa Fe) should be scaled back to minimize the impacts in the Colusa Circle area o 1 . Traffic 2. Pedestrian and cyclist safety 3. Parking 4. View and light access of bordering properties. We therefore advocate the following changes to the proposed developments: • Limiting building heights to two stories • Providing reasonable parking that covers peak periods, including the late afternoon and early evening periods • Protecting view and light access in accordance with existing laws • Requiring a traffic study • Considering Phase 2 and Phase 3 as awhole, addressing cumulative impacts from the two proposed projects • Changing building and landscape design to minimize negative impacts on properties in the surrounding areas. Name Address Signature JA V1 e"f ICS 1`2 ©a k V j VA A/1 6n Please fax signed petitions to 270-738-2597. To be placed on ounemail list, send an email to ColusaCircleQzmail.com. NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION We are concerned citizens who live near and have an interest in the development of the Colusa Circle. We desire sensible development that is in harmony with the current neighborhood. We believe the proposed development for Phase 2 (401 Colusa Ave.) and Phase 3 (triangle building bordered by Colusa, Oak View and Santa Fe) should be scaled back to minimize the impacts in the Colusa Circle area on: 1 . traffic 2. pedestrian and cyclist safety 3. parking, and 4. view and light access of bordering properties. We therefore advocate the following changes to the proposed developments: ► limiting building heights to two stories ► providing reasonable parking that covers peak periods, including the late afternoon and early evening periods ► protecting view and light access in accordance with existing laws ► requiring a traffic study ► considering Phase 2 and Phase 3 as a whole, addressing cumulative impacts from the two proposed projects, and ► changing building and landscape design to minimize negative impacts on properties in the surrounding areas. Name Address av,A- r-'0- AL�-(- / r V VJ/W All 0"L' lea e fax, igned petitions to 270-738-2597. To be placed n our email ist, send an ema 1 to ColusaCircle@wnail.com. i NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION We are concerned citizens who live near and have an interest in the development of the Colusa Circle. We desire sensible development that is in harmony with the current neighborhood. We believe the proposed development for Phase 2 (401 Colusa Ave.) and Phase 3 (triangle building bordered by Colusa, Oak View and Santa Fe) should be scaled back to minimize the impacts in the Colusa Circle area on: 1. Traffic 2. Pedestrian and cyclist safety 3. Parking 4. View and light access of bordering properties. We therefore advocate the following changes to the proposed developments: • Limiting building heights to two stories • Providing reasonable parking that covers peak periods, including the_ late afternoon and early evening periods • Protecting view and light access in accordance with existing laws Requiring a traffic study • Considering Phase 2 and Phase 3 as a whole, addressing cumulative impacts from the two proposed projects • Changing building and landscape design to minimize negative impacts on properties in the surrounding areas. Name Address Sin . ure P�-�/ V' Dix o Please fax signed petitions to 270-738-2597. To be placed on our email list, send an email to ColusaCircle@gmail.com. �i I i NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION We are concerned citizens who live near and have an interest in the development of the Colusa Circle. We desire sensible development that is in harmony with the current neighborhood. We believe the proposed development for Phase 2 (401 Colusa Ave.) and Phase 3 (triangle building bordered by Colusa, Oak View and Santa Fe) should be scaled back to minimize the impacts in the Colusa Circle area on: 1. traffic 2. pedestrian and cyclist safety 3. parking, and 4. view and light access of bordering properties. We therefore advocate the following changes to the proposed developments: ► limiting building heights to two stories ► providing reasonable parking that covers peak periods, including the late afternoon and early evening periods ► protecting view and light access in accordance with existing laws ► requiring a traffic study ► considering Phase 2 and Phase 3 as a whole, addressing cumulative impacts from the two proposed projects, and ► changing building and landscape design to minimize negative impacts on properties in the surrounding areas. Name Address Signature .�- si-/7 6x376'_- divaril ur- -2 V kq .9 Please fax.signed petitions to 270-738-2597. To be placed on our email list, send an email to ColusaCircle(j ,gmail.com. s NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION We are concerned citizens who live near and have an interest in the development of the Colusa Circle. We desire sensible development that is in harmony with the current neighborhood. We believe the proposed development for Phase 2 (401 Colusa Ave.) and Phase 3 (triangle building bordered by Colusa, Oak View and Santa Fe) should be scaled back to minimize the impacts in the Colusa Circle area on: 1 . Traffic 2. Pedestrian and cyclist safety 3. Parking 4. View and light access of bordering properties. We therefore advocate the following changes to the proposed developments: • Limiting building heights to two stories • Providing reasonable parking that covers peak periods, including the late afternoon and early evening periods Protecting view and light access in accordance with existing laws Requiring a traffic study Considering Phase 2 and Phase 3 as a whole, addressing cumulative impacts from the two proposed projects • Changing building and landscape design to minimize negative impacts on properties in the surrounding areas. Name Address Signature EP-J gAh 460 0AIUA'a Py Qr C I- , o 1 b � Vi �1,4 Mo S Please fax signed petitions to 270-738-2597. To be placed on our email list, send an email to ColusaCircle@�,,mail.com. t i I i NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION We are concerned citizens who live near and have an interest in the development of the Colusa Circle. We desire sensible development that is in harmony with the current neighborhood. We believe the proposed development for,Phase 2 (401 Colusa Ave.) and Phase 3 (triangle building bordered by Colusa, Oak View and Santa Fe) should be scaled back to minimize the impacts in the Colusa Circle area on: 1. Traffic 2. Pedestrian and cyclist safety 3. Parking 4. View and light access of bordering properties. We therefore advocate the following changes to the proposed developments: • Limiting building heights to two stories • Providing reasonable parking that covers peak periods, including the late afternoon and early evening periods • Protecting view and light access in accordance with existing laws • Requiring a traffic study • Considering Phase 2 and Phase 3 as a whole, addressing cumulative impacts from the two proposed projects • Changing building and landscape design to minimize negative impacts on properties in the surrounding areas. Name Address '1'11� Signature ////� U � 1 t • Y" /tel d �►,, 1 -7 f' V I t�` i 4 L-. Aw- _ f k 5�'M Aoe" R"C" qiqo�- -6- A)7fe n �'a,-�c�erJ�Ve d 15 L p-rcAm czt� �tS w� ' - - Please fax signed petitions to 270-738-2597. To be placed on our email list, send an email to ColusaCirclengmail.com. - - i� I I. ii i NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION We are concerned citizens who live near and have an interest in the development of the Colusa Circle. We desire sensible development that is in harmony with the current neighborhood. i We believe the proposed development for Phase 2 (401 Colusa Ave.) and Phase 3 (triangle building bordered by Colusa, Oak View and Santa Fe) should be scaled back to minimize the impacts in the Colusa Circle area on: 1. traffic 2. pedestrian and cyclist safety 3. parking, and 4. view and light access of bordering properties. We therefore advocate the following changes to the proposed developments; ► limiting building heights to two stories ► providing reasonable parking that covers peak periods, including the late afternoon and early evening periods ► protecting view and light access in accordance with existing laws ► requiring a traffic study ► considering Phase 2 and Phase 3 as a whole, addressing cumulative impacts from the two proposed projects, and ► changing building and landscape design to minimize negative impacts on properties in the surrounding areas, Name Address Signature ... 110 V., V p V - jj S`��' Ic L, r��. �� L V re �e.�;f n ifs 9 CA :Z 'I Please fax,signed petitions to 270-738-2597. To be placed on our email list, send an email to ColusaCircle(a�mail.com, III N I NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION We are concerned citizens who live near and have an interest in the development of the Colusa Circle. We desire sensible development that is in harmony with the current neighborhood. We believe the proposed development for Phase 2 (401 Colusa Ave.) and Phase 3 (triangle building bordered by Colusa, Oak View and Santa Fe) should be scaled back to minimize the impacts in the Colusa Circle area on: 1 . Traffic 2. Pedestrian and cyclist safety 3. Parking 4. View and light access of bordering properties. We therefore advocate the following changes to the proposed developments: • Limiting building heights to two stories • Providing reasonable parking that covers peak periods, including the late afternoon and early evening periods • Protecting view and light access in accordance with existing laws • Requiring a traffic study • Considering Phase 2 and Phase 3 as a whole, addressing cumulative impacts from the two proposed projects • Changing building and landscape design to minimize negative impacts on properties in the surrounding areas. Name Address Signature j►/��l-'�'J✓'Ei TC`SSL6'1/ 225- --L2 25-- D�, /I LK J J CDL 050 f( VF- �- i7c>g0 CL-�c1C t4 20"1 R5MI�U24 R-Ji� r' a ,-Tb S Please fax signed petitions to 270-738-2597. To be placed on our email list, send an email to ColusaCircle@gmail.com. l �� NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION We are concerned citizens who live near and have an interest in the development of the Colusa Circle. We desire sensible development that is in harmony with the current neighborhood. i We believe the proposed development for Phase 2 (401 Colusa Ave.) and Phase 3 (triangle building bordered by Colusa, Oak View and Santa Fe) should be scaled back to minimize the impacts in the Colusa Circle area on: 1. Traffic 2. Pedestrian and cyclist safety I` 3. Parking ,f 4. View and light access of bordering properties. II !� We therefore advocate the following changes to the proposed developments: !� a Limiting building heights to two stories • Providing reasonable parking that covers peak periods, including the late afternoon and early evening periods Protecting view and light access in accordance with existing laws � g g g ! • Requiring a traffic study • Considering Phase 2 and Phase 3 as a whole, addressing cumulative impacts from the two proposed projects • Changing building and landscape design to minimize negative impacts on properties in the surrounding areas. p Name Address q Sig e a- (r ck. J 1` 7 v z f JA e)A&J n, Please fax signed petitions to 270-738-2597. To be placed on our email list, send an email to ColusaCircle gmail.com. - - l �, i NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION We are concerned citizens who live near and have an interest in the development of the Colusa Circle. We desire sensible development that is in harmony with the current neighborhood. We believe the proposed development for Phase 2 (401 Colusa Ave.) and Phase 3 (triangle building bordered by Colusa, Oak View and Santa Fe) should be scaled back to minimize the impacts in the Colusa Circle area on: 1. Traffic 2. Pedestrian and cyclist safety 3. Parking 4. View and light access of bordering properties. We therefore advocate the following changes to the proposed developments: • Limiting building heights to two stories • Providing reasonable parking that covers peak periods, including the late afternoon and early evening periods • Protecting view and light access in accordance with existing laws • Requiring a traffic study • Considering Phase 2 and Phase 3 as a whole, addressing cumulative impacts from the two proposed projects • Changing building and landscape design to minimize negative impacts on properties in the surrounding areas. Name Address Si natu e C V1, c _ r�� e Utz 1 Please fax signed petitions to 270-738-2597. To be placed on our email list, send an email to ColusaCircle@2iiiail.com. NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION We are concerned citizens who live near and have an interest in the development of the Colusa Circle. We desire sensible development that is in harmony with the current neighborhood. We believe the proposed development for,Phase 2 (401 Colusa Ave.) and Phase 3 (triangle building bordered by COlusa, Oak View and Santa Fe) should be scaled back to minimize the impacts in the Colusa Circle area on: i 1. Traffic 2. Pedestrian and cyclist safety 3. Parking ' 4. View and light access of bordering properties. We therefore advocate the following changes to the proposed developments: • Limiting building heights to two stories Providing reasonable parking that covers peak periods, including the late afternoon and early evening periods Protecting view and light access in accordance with existing laws Requiring a traffic study A Considering Phase 2 and Phase 3 as a whole, addressing cumulative impacts from the two proposed projects A Changing building and landscape design to minimize negative impacts on properties in the surrounding areas. Name Address tSi- nature fhnc��(Gc ri 16297�— n>onI /G3 t vJ ye. (14� V�ew kizz, //9 ;go c_ 11 Z N l Cilli Please fax signed petitions to 270-738-2597. To beP laced on our email list, send an email to ColusaCircle@gmail.com. - — - (1 i i NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION We are concerned citizens who live near and have an interest in the development of the Colusa Circle. We desire sensible development that is in harmony with the current neighborhood. We believe the proposed development for Phase 2 (401 Colusa Ave.) and Phase 3 (triangle building bordered by Colusa, Oak View and Santa Fe) should be scaled back to minimize the impacts in the Colusa Circle area on: 1. traffic 2. pedestrian and cyclist safety 3. parking, and 4. view and light access of bordering properties. We therefore advocate the following changes to the proposed developments; ► limiting building heights to two stories ► providing reasonable parking that covers peak periods, including the late afternoon and early evening periods ► protecting view and light access in accordance with existing laws ► requiring a traffic study M considering Phase 2 and Phase 3 as a whole, addressing cumulative impacts from the two proposed projects, and ► changing building and landscape design to minimize negative impacts on properties in the surrounding areas. Name Address Signature V1 1341 V, U 7-W1 6- 1�21 lt5v�% Please fax,signed petitions to 270-738-2597. To be placed on our email list, send an email to ColusaCircle(a,Qanail.com. i y NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION We are concerned citizens who live near and have an interest in the development of the Colusa Circle. We desire sensible development that is in harmony with the current neighborhood. We believe the proposed development for,Phase 2 (401 Colusa Ave.) and Phase 3 (triangle building bordered by Colusa, Oak View and Santa Fe) should be scaled back to minimize the impacts in the Colusa Circle area on: 1. Traffic 2. Pedestrian and cyclist safety 3. Parking 4. View and light access of bordering properties. We therefore advocate the following changes to the proposed developments: • Limiting building heights to two stories • Providing reasonable parking that covers peak periods, including the late afternoon and early evening periosts • Protecting view and light access in accordance with existing laws • Requiring a traffic study • Considering Phase 2 and Phase 3 as a whole, addressing cumulative impacts from the two proposed projects • Changing building and landscape design to minimize negative impacts on properties in the surrounding areas. Name Address Signature ' k A- 0 �✓1.�•e Sn �Color�(,i� C�(fo 3L✓�C�-�� U-^i('�- Uj jV� �! co 7 Pleas / e fax igned petitions to 270-738-2597. To be placed on our email list, send an , email to ColusaCirclegginail.com. -- - - A O � 5 �0)i ' NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION We are concerned citizens who live near and have an interest in the development of the Colusa Circle. We desire sensible development that is in harmony with the current neighborhood. We believe the proposed development for,Phase 2 (401 Colusa Ave.) and Phase 3 (triangle building bordered by Colusa, Oak View and Santa Fe) should be scaled back to minimize the impacts in the Colusa Circle area on: 1 . Traffic 2. Pedestrian and cyclist safety 3. Parking 4. View and light access of bordering properties. We therefore advocate the following changes to the proposed developments: • Limiting building heights to two stories • Providing reasonable parking that covers peak periods, including the late afternoon and early evening periods • Protecting view and light access in accordance with existing laws • Requiring a traffic study • Considering Phase 2 and Phase 3 as a whole, addressing cumulative impacts from the two proposed projects • Changing building and landscape design to minimize negative impacts on properties in the surrounding areas. Name Address Signature c C� L g � on c, �b4, . C A _ � �' � , ,� ,ter� �, o�✓ ,_l-�/ 1,f�, �, �f� �le �1,��..1 ✓dl ". �,�t51��,�i'1, C f'�- - C�i�c�e� C P �1 Please fax signed petitions to 270=738-2597. To be placed on our email list, send an email to ColusaCircleggmail.com. -- j NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION �s i We are concerned citizens who live near and have an interest in the development of the Colusa Circle. We desire sensible development that is in harmony with the current neighborhood. We believe the proposed development for Phase 2 (401 Colusa Ave.) and Phase 3 (triangle building bordered by Colusa, Oak View and Santa Fe) should be scaled back to minimize the impacts in the Colusa Circle area on: 1. traffic 2. pedestrian and cyclist safety 3. parking, and 4. view and light access of bordering properties. li �i We therefore advocate the following changes to the proposed developments: j limiting building heights to two stories ► providing reasonable parking that covers peak periods, including the late I, afternoon and early evening periods ► protecting view and light access in accordance with existing laws ► requiring a traffic study ► considering Phase 2 and Phase 3 as a whole, addressing cumulative • impacts from the two proposed projects, and ► changing building and landscape design to minimize negative impacts on properties in the surrounding areas. Name Address Signature W CS (',�"l�-' v`i t Z- 10G2.�J-I -?-7T -el (-ktA Afl� ' 'f 4 Y-0 Q c"v1 51 L G�A tl 890 V I bI- �-�C) Please fax,signed petitions to 270-738-2597. To be placed on our email list, send an email to ColusaCircle(a�mail.com. • i . NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION We are concerned citizens who live near and have an interest in the development of the Colusa Circle. We desire sensible development that is in harmony with the current neighborhood. We believe the proposed development for Phase 2 (401 Colusa Ave.) and Phase 3 (triangle building bordered by Colusa, Oak View and Santa Fe) should be scaled back to minimize the impacts in the Colusa Circle area on: 1 . traffic 2. pedestrian and cyclist safety 3. parking, and 4. view and light access of bordering properties. We therefore advocate the following changes to the proposed developments: ► limiting building heights to two stories ► providing reasonable parking that covers peak periods, including the late afternoon and early evening periods ► protecting view and light access in accordance with existing laws ► requiring a traffic study ► considering Phase 2 and Phase 3 as a whole, addressing cumulative impacts from the two proposed projects, and ► changing building and landscape design to minimize negative impacts on properties in the surrounding areas. Name Address �f Signature es -360, 06ea" V 2w 14e 1 JDA K[70L �7 3� av CMN VfEW a c aw3 ✓cA 3 ovevi r Ad Please fax,signed petitions to 270-73 8-2597. To be placed on our email list, send an email to ColusaCircle@gmail.com. i I j . NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION i We are concerned citizens who live near and have an interest in the development of the Colusa Circle. We desire sensible development that is in harmony with the current neighborhood. We believe the proposed development for Phase 2 (401 Colusa Ave.) and Phase 3 (triangle building bordered by Colusa, Oak View and Santa, Fe) should be scaled back to minimize the impacts in the Colusa Circle area on- 1 . traffic 2. pedestrian and cyclist safety 3. parking, and 4. view and light access of bordering properties. We therefore advocate the following changes to the proposed developments,- limiting evelopments:limiting building heights to two stories providing reasonable parking that covers peak periods, including the late afternoon and early evening periods ► protecting view and light access in accordance with existing laws ► requiring a traffic study • considering Phase 2 and Phase 3 as a whole, addressing cumulative impacts from the two proposed projects, and ► changing building and landscape design to minimize negative impacts on properties in the surrounding areas. ` t ' Name Address Signature /N6.4 Llow (a,,.e_ ery,cc�l: (� us-f i 1 0- 1d 1.d I10-o U- 'Keas;nq fi-m >�la0rn /-id;CA-el�- >06GiJ,`//v u/ka-",e, K�P_n_V'0 -/-pn ELVA1111Uod) l c- C,leir/ . C Please fax,signed petitions to 270-738-2597. To be placed on our email list, send an email to ColusaCire]egamail.com. �3 _ NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION We are concerned citizens who live near and have an interest in the development of the Colusa Circle. We desire sensible development that is in harmony with the current neighborhood. We believe the proposed development for Phase 2 (401 Colusa Ave.) and Phase 3 (triangle building bordered by Colusa, Oak View and Santa Fe) should be scaled back to minimize the impacts in the Colusa Circle area on: 1 . Traffic 2. Pedestrian and cyclist safety 3. Parking 4. View and light access of bordering properties. We therefore advocate the following changes to the proposed developments: • Limiting building heights to two stories •. Providing reasonable parking that covers peak periods, including the. late afternoon and early evening periods Protecting view and light access in accordance with existing laws • Requiring a traffic study . • Considering Phase 2 and Phase 3 as a whole, addressing cumulative • impacts from the two proposed projects • Changing building and landscape design to minimize negative impacts on properties in the surrounding areas. Name Address Sig,nat re Si� r C- X04 r o-tv'&J P �Z_'-'-T /2-t S -e, H. 6-7-c 14 - 3700n A Please fax signed petitions to 270-738-2597. To be placed on our email list, send an email to.ColusaCircle@gmail.com. ;?A I NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION We are concerned citizens who live near and have an interest in the development of the Colusa Circle. We desire sensible development that is in harmony with the current neighborhood. We believe the proposed development for Phase 2 (401 Colusa Ave.) and Phase 3 (triangle building bordered by Colusa, Oak View and Santa .Fe) should be scaled back to minimize the impacts in the Colusa Circle area on: 1. Traffic 2. Pedestrian and cyclist safety 3. Parking 4. View and light access of bordering properties. We therefore advocate the following changes to the proposed developments: • Limiting building heights to two stories • Providing reasonable parking that covers peak periods, including the late afternoon and early evening periods • Protecting view and light access in accordance with existing laws • Requiring a traffic study a Considering.Phase 2 and Phase 3 as a whole, addressing cumulative • impacts from the two proposed projects • Changing building and landscape design to minimize negative impacts on properties in the surrounding areas„ Name Address Sim ture I S kdje o ed to -041'u+ P:L41 Lcu%t4 JO - Please fax signed petitions to 270-738-2597. To be placed on our email list, send an email to ColusaCircle@gmail.com. NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION We are concerned citizens who live near and have an interest in the development of the Colusa Circle. We desire sensible development that is in harmony with the current neighborhood. We believe the proposed development for Phase 2 (401 Colusa Ave.) and Phase 3 (triangle building bordered by Colusa, Oak View and Santa Fe) should be scaled back to minimize the impacts in the Colusa Circle area on: 1 . Traffic 2. Pedestrian and cyclist safety 3. Parking 4. View and light access of bordering properties. We therefore advocate the following changes to the proposed developments: • Limiting building heights to two stories • Providing reasonable parking that covers peak periods, including the late afternoon and early evening periods • Protecting view and fight access in accordance with existing laws • Requiring a traffic study • Considering Phase 2 and Phase 3 as a whole, addressing cumulative �• impacts from the two proposed projects • Changing building and landscape design to minimize negative impacts on properties in the surrounding areas. Name Address Signature AAA EA o) ,5 g&-, 3s c"tA- -'-fl,rw� S cif 2 Z Cu en s 57n ew Ic-T. L--7 Ll3 nl -�v�g3 A 2 S Fv��--� �-c L n►s r ca a� awe,-��.. Please fax signed petitions to 270-738-2597. To be placed on our email list, send an email to ColusaCircic@gmail.com. NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION We are concerned citizens who live near and have an interest in the development of the Colusa Circle. We desire sensible development that is in harmony with the current neighborhood. We believe the proposed development for,Phase 2 (401 Colusa Ave.) and Phase 3 (triangle building bordered by Colusa, Oak View and Santa Fe) should be scaled back to minimize the impacts in the Colusa Circle area on: 1 . Traffic 2. Pedestrian and cyclist safety 3. Parking 4. View and light access of bordering properties. We therefore advocate the following changes to the proposed developments: • Limiting .building heights to two stories • Providing reasonable parking that covers peak periods, including the late afternoon and early evening periods • Protecting view and light access in accordance with existing laws • Requiring a traffic study • Considering Phase 2 and Phase 3 as a whole, addressing cumulative • impacts from the two proposed projects • Changing building and landscape design to minimize negative impacts on properties in the surrounding-areas. Name Address Signature ' � /0 44 e ILK _r2ei� 44f/n�& &A vuo 6_04 c( S S4- �9 „ V'5, ? A/l/s ; Please fax signed petitions to 270-738-2597. To be placed on our emaA'J"ist, send an ✓ . email to ColusaCircle(cr� mail.com. • NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION We are concerned citizens who live near and have an interest in the development of the Colusa Circle. We desire sensible development that is in harmony with the current neighborhood. We believe the proposed development for Phase 2 (401 Colusa Ave.) and Phase 3 (triangle building bordered by Colusa, Oak View and Santa Fe) should be scaled back to minimize the impacts in the Colusa Circle area on: 1. Traffic 2. Pedestrian and cyclist safety 3. Parking 4. View and light access of bordering properties. We therefore advocate the following changes to the proposed developments: • Limiting building heights to two stories • Providing reasonable parking that covers peak periods, including the late afternoon and early evening periods • Protecting view and light access in accordance with existing laws • Requiring a traffic study • • Considering Phase 2 and Phase 3 as a whole, addressing cumulative impacts from the two proposed projects • Changing building and landscape design to minimize negative impacts on properties in the surrounding areas. Name Address Signature 4 �J Please fax signed petitions to 270-738-2597. o be placed o our email list, send an email to ColusaCircle@gmail.com. • NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION We are concerned citizens who live near and have an interest in the development of the Colusa Circle. We desire sensible development that is in harmony with the current neighborhood. We believe the proposed development for Phase 2 (401 Colusa Ave.) and Phase 3 (triangle building bordered by Colusa, Oak View and Santa Fe) should be scaled back to minimize the impacts in the Colusa Circle area on: 1 . Traffic E 2. Pedestrian and cyclist safety 3. Parking 4. View and light access of bordering properties. We therefore advocate the following changes to the proposed developments: • Limiting building heights to two stories • Providing reasonable parking that covers peak periods, including the late afternoon and early evening periods • Protecting view and light access in accordance with existing laws • Requiring a traffic study • Considering Phase 2 and Phase 3 as a whole, addressing cumulative • impacts from the two proposed projects • Changing building and landscape design to minimize negative impacts on properties in the surrounding areas. (dame Address Signature JCA,VT �G/(� e os 231 wtV� YGt ` AaI 4,4 too ,��/11.(i�!%j �L�•�i�GiovlL,-r� �/ �Gt m-1'-LJIi-� �� - h-w�Cv 2.6� r � Please fax signed petitions to 270-738-2597. To be placed on our email list, send an email to ColusaCircle@gmail.com. • u NEIGHBORHOOD € ETITION • We are concerned citizens who live near and have an interest in the development of the Colusa Circle. We desire sensible development that is in harmony with the current neighborhood. We believe the proposed development for Phase 2 (401 Colusa Ave.) and Phase 3 (triangle building bordered by Colusa, Oak View and Santa Fe) should be scaled back to minimize the impacts in the Colusa Circle area on: 1 . Traffic 2. Pedestrian and cyclist safety 3. Parking 4. View and light access of bordering properties. We therefore advocate the following changes to the proposed developments: Limiting building heights to two stories ® Providing reasonable parking that covert, peak periods, including the late afternoon and early evening periods 0 Protecting view and light access in accordance with existing laws ® Requiring a traffic study Considering Phase 2 and Phase 3 as a whole, addressing cumulative • impacts from the two proposed projects o Changing building and landscape design to minimize negative impacts on properties in the surrounding areas. Blame Address Signature .�'i�,`e lair`Z,,, Zy p Cfi-Q •� ,,,�.P. �-ar-S�,^- 4�c �'6Y o � l � C c� c6 9 Cat.d-�, 0)e V�60' Please fax signedpetitions to 270-738-2597. To be placed on our email list, send an email to ColusaCircle@gmail.com. • 'C i i NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION We are concerned citizens who live near and have an interest in the development of the Colusa Circle. We desire sensible development that is in harmony with the current neighborhood. We believe the proposed development for Phase 2 (401 Colusa Ave.) and Phase 3 (triangle building bordered by Colusa, Oak View and Santa Fe) should be scaled back to minimize the impacts in the Colusa Circle area on: 1 . Traffic 2. Pedestrian and cyclist safety 3. Parking 4. View and light access of bordering properties. We therefore advocate the following changes to the proposed developments: Limiting building heights to two stories o Providing reasonable parking that covers peak periods, including the late afternoon and early evening periods Protecting view and light access in accordance with existing laws Requiring a traffic study Considering Phase 2 and Phase 3 as a whole, addressing cumulative • impacts from the two proposed projects • Changing building and landscape design to minimize negative impacts on properties in the surrounding areas. Name Address Signature �7�U �Iry v -7 �-�l.J/V4 ��/ �iV& )Zeo r)�� f Please fax signed petitions to 270-738-2597. To be placed on our email list, send an email to ColusaCircle@gmail.com. • NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION We are concerned citizens who live near and have an interest in the development of the Colusa Circle. We desire sensible development that is in j harmony with the current neighborhood. We believe the proposed development for Phase 2 (401 Colusa Ave.) and Phase 3 (triangle building bordered by Colusa, Oak View and Santa Fe) should be scaled back to minimize the impacts in the Colusa Circle area on: 1. Traffic 2. Pedestrian and cyclist safety 3. Parking 4. View and light access of bordering properties. We therefore advocate the following changes to the proposed developments: • Limiting building heights to two stories • Providing reasonable parking that covers peak periods, including the late afternoon and early evening periods • Protecting view and light access in accordance with existing laws • Requiring a traffic study • Considering Phase 2 and Phase 3 as a whole, addressing cumulative . impacts from the two proposed projects • Changing building and landscape design to minimize negative impacts on properties in the surrounding areas. Name Address Signature T AP-L. itofe-iTC4Q L-6: XP R6-S> L-A-V E -r`� l l �Y�, �- t�h►ti tiS , g 4 0 7 \ ✓ 291 c 1''��ri A J 1 � �x� � /l-t l�nA•� j? Nom? Please fax signed petitions to 270-738-2597. To be placed on our email list, send an email to ColusaCircle@amail.com. • NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION i � We are concerned citizens who live near and have an interest in the development of the Colusa Circle. We desire sensible development that is in harmony with the current neighborhood. We believe the proposed development for Phase 2 (401 Colusa Ave.) and Phase 3 (triangle building bordered by Colusa, Oak View and Santa Fe) should be scaled back to minimize the impacts in the Colusa Circle area on: 1. traffic 2. pedestrian and cyclist safety 3. parking, and 4. view and light access of bordering properties. We therefore advocate the following changes to the proposed developments: ► limiting building heights to two stories ► providing reasonable parking that covers peak periods, including the late afternoon and early evening periods ► protecting view and light access in accordance with existing laws ► requiring a traffic study ► considering Phase 2 and Phase 3 as a whole, addressing cumulative • impacts from the two proposed projects, and ► changing building and landscape design to minimize negative impacts on properties in the surrounding areas. Name Address Signature `�'��►�� I��'9 U100 L , �PC-t /L OtC.t � d Ce �`. Please fax.signed petitions to 270-738-2597. To be placed on our email list, send an email to ColusaCircle(a) mail.com. • 7 4 i • NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION We are concerned citizens who live near and have an interest in the development of the Colusa Circle. We desire sensible development that is in harmony with the current neighborhood. We believe the proposed development for Phase 2 (401 Colusa Ave.) and Phase 3 (triangle building bordered by Colusa, Oak View and Santa Fe) should be scaled back to minimize the impacts in the Colusa Circle area on: 1. Traffic 2. Pedestrian and cyclist safety 3. Parking 4. View and light access of bordering properties. We therefore advocate the following changes to the proposed developments: • Limiting building heights to,two stories • Providing reasonable parkirothat covers peak periods, including the late afternoon and early evgning periods Protecting view and light access in accordance with existing laws • Requiring a traffic study • Considering Phase 2 and Phase 3 as a whole, addressing cumulative • impacts from the two proposed projects s Changing building and landscape design to minimize negative impacts on properties in the surrounding areas. Name Address Signature ► 12-,1b klE k i/V G' 17c? <,ebme PaT cv, rev, AX - 00 2wf�CsZ. -SQ 2 611 Please fax signed petitions to 270-738-2597. To be placed on our email list, send an email to ColusaCircle@gmail.com. NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION • We are concerned citizens who live near and have an interest in the development of the Colusa Circle. We desire sensible development that is in harmony with the current neighborhood. We believe the proposed development for Phase 2 (401 Colusa Ave.) and Phase 3 (triangle building bordered by Colusa, Oak View and Santa Fe) should be scaled back to minimize the impacts in the Colusa Circle area on: 1. traffic 2. pedestrian and cyclist safety 3. parking, and 4. view and light access of bordering properties. it 'i We therefore advocate the following changes to the proposed developments: ► limiting building heights to two stories ► providing reasonable parking that covers peak periods, including the late afternoon and early evening periods protecting view and light access in accordance with existing laws ► requiring a traffic study ► considering Phase 2 and Phase 3 as a whole, addressing cumulative • impacts from the two proposed projects, and ► changing building and landscape design to minimize negative impacts on properties in the surrounding areas. Name Address Signature n1 ( � �� e 6�663 - ULrc. OMAN Please fax,signed petitions to 270-738-2597. To be placed on our email list, send an email to ColusaCircle@wnail.com. • i i • NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION We are concerned citizens who live near and have an interest in the development of the Colusa Circle. We desire sensible development that is in harmony with the current neighborhood. We believe the proposed development for Phase 2 (401 Colusa Ave.) and Phase 3 (triangle building bordered by Colusa, Oak View and Santa Fe) should be scaled back to minimize the impacts in the Colusa Circle area on: 1 . traffic 2. pedestrian and cyclist safety 3. parking, and 4. view and light access of bordering properties. We therefore advocate the following changes to the proposed developments: ► limiting building heights to two stories ► providing reasonable parking that covers peak periods, including the late afternoon and early evening periods ► protecting view and light access in accordance with existing laws ► requiring a traffic study ► considering Phase 2 and Phase 3 as a whole, addressing cumulative • impacts from the two proposed projects, and ► changing building and landscape design to minimize negative impacts on properties in the surrounding areas. Name Address Si nat I (.U11-1 �f Yl 2i --e f c. i% = 3 r 4 Please fax,signed petitions to 270-738-2597. To be placed on our email list, send an email to ColusaCircle(a gmail.com. • A ¢1 NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION We are concerned citizens who live near and have an interest in the development of the Colusa Circle. We desire sensible development that is in harmony with the current neighborhood. 7 We believe the proposed development for Phase 2 (401 Colusa Ave.) and Phase 3 (triangle building bordered by Colusa, Oak View and Santa Fe) should be scaled back to minimize the impacts in the Colusa Circle area on: 1. Traffic 2. Pedestrian and cyclist safety 3. Parking 4. View and light access of bordering properties. We therefore advocate the following changes to the proposed developments: ® Limiting building heights to two stories Providing reasonable parking that covers peak periods, including the late afternoon and early evening periods • Protecting view and light access in accordance with existing laws Requiring a traffic study Considering Phase 2 and Phase 3 as a whole, addressing cumulative • impacts from the two proposed projects Changing building and landscape design to minimize negative impacts on properties in the surrounding areas. I Namp e Address Signature (� 7 eT ton e Please fax signed petitions to 270-738-2597. To be placed on our email list, send an email to ColusaCirele@gmail.com. • i NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION We are concerned citizens who live near and have an interest in the development of the Colusa Circle. We desire sensible development that is in harmony with the current neighborhood. We believe the proposed development for Phase 2 (401 Colusa Ave.) and Phase 3 (triangle building bordered by Colusa, Oak View and Santa Fe) should be scaled back to minimize the impacts in the Colusa Circle area on: 1. traffic 2. pedestrian and cyclist safety 3. parking, and 4. view and light access of bordering properties. We therefore advocate the following changes to the proposed developments, ► limiting building heights to two stories ► providing reasonable parking that covers peak periods, including the late afternoon and early evening periods ► protecting view and light access in accordance with existing laws ► requiring a traffic study ► considering Phase 2 and Phase 3 as a whole, addressing cumulative • impacts from the two proposed projects, and ► changing building and landscape design to minimize negative impacts on properties in the surrounding areas. Name Address Signature ` VW11C&� f-n 1 l-2 UA' ►VW*J due . MF 7� c v Jo N M�u,S Iby� OAS, VieY,) AV . DnICIA C ND = o M11 u LAwK-G"CL C . ACJPCl25a-AJ C61� pC-'e�V/eJA-V'!C- AA' �\S MW 6,L We Please fax,signed petitions to 270-738-2597. To be placed on our email list, send an email to ColusaCircle@a -mail.com. • i I • NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION We are concerned citizens who live near and have an interest in the development of the Colusa Circle. We desire sensible development that is in harmony with the current neighborhood. We believe the proposed development for Phase 2 (401 Colusa Ave.) and Phase 3 (triangle building bordered by Colusa, Oak View and Santa Fe) should be scaled back to minimize the impacts in the Colusa Circle area on: 1. Traffic 2. Pedestrian and cyclist safety 3. Parking 4. View and light access of bordering properties. We therefore advocate the following changes to the proposed developments: • Limiting building heights to two stories; • Providing reasonable parking that covers peak periods, including the_ late afternoon and early evening periods • Protecting view and light access in accordance with existing laws • Requiring a traffic study • • Considering Phase 2 and Phase 3 as a whole, addressing cumulative impacts from the two proposed projects • Changing building and landscape design to minimize negative impacts on properties in the surrounding areas. Name Address Signature 4 (,) ,4 `✓ So ryuc., Z4 i,V1 � t� i Please fax signed petitions to 270-738-2597. To be placed on our email list, send an email to ColusaCircle@gmail.com. • NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION We are concerned citizens who live near and have an interest in the development of the Colusa Circle. We desire sensible development that is in harmony with the current neighborhood. We believe the proposed development for Phase 2 (401 Colusa Ave.) and Phase 3 (triangle building bordered by Colusa, Oak View and Santa Fe) should be scaled back to minimize the impacts in the Colusa Circle area on: 1 . Traffic 2. Pedestrian and cyclist safety 3. Parking 4. View and light access of bordering properties. We therefore advocate the following changes to the proposed developments: • Limiting building heights to two stories • Providing reasonable parking that covers peak periods, including the late afternoon and early evening periods • Protecting view and light access in accordance with existing laws • Requiring a traffic study • • Considering Phase 2 and Phase 3 as a whole, addressing cumulative impacts from the two proposed projects • Changing building and landscape design to minimize negative impacts on properties in the surrounding areas. Name Address Signature Please fax signed petitions to 270-738-2597. To be placed on our email list, send an email to ColusaCircle@,amail.com. • 1 _ j NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION We are concerned citizens who live near and have an interest in the development of the Colusa Circle. We desire sensible development that is in harmony with the current neighborhood. We believe the proposed development for,Phase 2 (401 Colusa Ave.) and Phase 3 (triangle building bordered by Colusa, Oak View and Santa Fe) should be scaled back to minimize the impacts in the Colusa Circle area on: 1. Traffic 2. Pedestrian and cyclist safety 3. Parking 4. View and light access of bordering properties. We therefore advocate the following changes to the proposed developments: • Limiting building heights to two stories • Providing reasonable parking that covers peak periods, including the late afternoon and early evening periods - • Protecting view and light access in accordance with existing laws • Requiring a traffic study • Considering Phase 2 and Phase 3 as a whole, addressing cumulative impacts from the two proposed projects • Changing building and landscape design to minimize negative impacts on properties in the surrounding areas. Name Address Signature Please fax signed petitions to 270=73 8-2597. To be placed on our email list, send an email to ColusaCircle@gmail.com. - • fc � • NEIGHBORHOODS PETITION We are concerned citizens who live near and have an interest in the development of the Colusa Circle. We desire sensible development that is in harmony with the current neighborhood. We believe the proposed development for Phase 2 (401 Colusa Ave.) and Phase 3 (triangle building bordered by Colusa, Oak View and Santa Fe) should be scaled back to minimize the impacts in the Colusa Circle area on: 1. Traffic 2. Pedestrian and cyclist safety 3. Parking 4. View and light access of bordering properties. We therefore advocate the following changes to the proposed developments: • Limiting building heights to two stories • Providing reasonable parking that covers peak periods, including the late afternoon and early evening periods • Protecting view and light access in accordance with existing laws • Requiring a traffic study • Considering Phase 2 and Phase 3 as a whole, addressing cumulative • impacts from the two proposed projects • Changing building and landscape design to minimize negative impacts on properties in the surrounding areas. Name Address Signatu tai v►�,. ab Q-33 0am6 � 1 1kj-p0r)Y ejGjq o� �'�!' � ,►►fitvr�c 44i �� Q►1 LUUa Zig �l�njh,� T- Please fax signed petitions to 270-738-2597. To be placed on our email list, send an email to ColusaCircleggmail.com. — • ,.-7_ NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION We are concerned citizens who live near and have an interest in the development of the Colusa Circle. We desire sensible development that is in harmony with the current neighborhood. We believe the proposed development for Phase 2 (401 Colusa Ave.) and Phase 3 (triangle building bordered by Colusa, Oak View and Santa Fe) should be scaled back to minimize the impacts in the Colusa Circle area on- 1. n:1. traffic 2. pedestrian and cyclist safety 3. parking, and 4. view and light access of bordering properties. We therefore advocate the following changes to the proposed developments; ► limiting building heights to two stories ► providing reasonable parking that covers peak periods, including the late afternoon and early evening periods ► protecting view and light access in accordance with existing laws requiring a traffic study ► considering Phase 2 and Phase 3 as a whole, addressing cumulative • impacts from the two proposed projects, and ► changing building and landscape design to minimize negative impacts on properties in the surrounding areas. Name Address Signature 9414 fe, Please fax.signed petitions to 270-738-2597. To be placed on our email list, send an email to ColusaCircle@p—mail.com. 7 `1 • NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION We are concerned citizens who live near and have an interest in the development of the Colusa Circle. We desire sensible development that is in harmony with the current neighborhood. We believe the proposed development for Phase 2 (401 Colusa Ave.) and Phase 3 (triangle building bordered by Colusa, Oak View and Santa Fe) should be scaled back to minimize the impacts in the Colusa Circle area on: 1 . Traffic 2. Pedestrian and cyclist safety 3. Parking 4. View and light access of bordering properties. We therefore advocate the following changes to the proposed developments: Limiting building heights to two stories ® Providing reasonable parking that covers peak periods, including the late afternoon and early evening periods 4 Protecting view and light access in accordance with existing laws Requiring a traffic study Considering Phase 2 and Phase 3 as a whole, addressing cumulative impacts from the two proposed projects Changing building and landscape design to minimize negative impacts on properties in the surrounding areas. Name Address Signature y i ie�-'Jl fid. l evouu 10 1'-'-� IG� c 21A , � , � Ilk CJ Please fax signed petitions to 270-738-2597. To be placed on our email list, send an email to ColusaCircle@2mail.com. • II NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION f We are concerned citizens who live near and have an interest in the I development of the Colusa Circle. We desire sensible development that is in i harmony with the current neighborhood. iWe believe the proposed development for Phase 2 (401 Colusa Ave.) and Phase 3 (triangle building bordered by Colusa, Oak View and Santa Fe) should be scaled back to minimize the impacts in the Colusa Circle area on: u 1. traffic 2. pedestrian and cyclist safety 3. parking, and 4. view and light access of bordering properties. We therefore advocate the following changes to the proposed developments,- limiting evelopments;limiting building heights to two stories providing reasonable parking that covers peak periods, including the late afternoon and early evening periods ► protecting view and light access in accordance with existing laws ► requiring a traffic study ► considering Phase 2 and Phase 3 as a whole, addressing cumulative • impacts from the two proposed projects, and ► changing building and landscape design to minimize negative impacts' on properties in the surrounding areas. Name Address Signature 6 ( Cm te,01�j 33 q- /W:GLY)nQ-02,1 � Please fax,signed petitions to 270-738-2597. To be placed on our email list, send an email to ColusaCirclegginail.com. `t i • NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION We are concerned citizens who live near and have an interest in the development of the Colusa Circle. We desire sensible development that is in harmony with the current neighborhood. We believe the proposed development for,Phase 2 (401 Colusa Ave.) and Phase 3 (triangle building bordered by Colusa, Oak View and Santa Fe) should be scaled back to minimize the impacts in the Colusa Circle area on: 1. Traffic 2. Pedestrian and cyclist safety 3. Parking 4. View and light access of bordering properties. We therefore advocate the following changes to the proposed developments: Limiting building heights to two stories Providing reasonable parking that covers peak periods, including the late afternoon and early evening periods • Protecting view and light access in accordance with existing laws Requiring a traffic study - . • Considering Phase 2 and Phase 3 as a whole, addressing cumulative impacts from the two proposed projects • Changing building and landscape design to minimize negative impacts on properties in the surrounding areas. Name/ 6e Address Signature a f 7 ' Please fax signed petitions to 270=738-2597. To be placed on our email list, send an email to ColusaCircic@gmail.com. - - • o NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION • We are concerned citizens who live near and have an interest in the development of the Colusa Circle. We desire sensible development that is in harmony with the current neighborhood. We believe the proposed development for Phase 2 (401 Colusa Ave.) and Phase 3 (triangle building bordered by Colusa, Oak View and Santa Fe) should be scaled back to minimize the impacts in the Colusa Circle area on: 1 . Traffic 2. Pedestrian and cyclist safety 3. Parking 4. View and light access of bordering properties. We therefore advocate the following changes to the proposed developments: ® Limiting building heights to two stories ® Providing reasonable parking that covers peak periods, including the late afternoon and early evening periods Protecting view and light access in accordance with existing laws ® Requiring a traffic study . ® Considering Phase 2 and Phase 3 as a whole, addressing cumulative impacts from the two proposed projects Changing building and landscape design to minimize negative impacts on properties in the surrounding areas. Name Address Signature da' �1� Y Z�' L 61 /n' ! - G6 i A, M.tVd ro�L L "J ti eiLI71 ' s c � A4 Please fax signed petitions to 270-738-2597. To be placed on our email list, send an email to ColusaCircle@)gmail.com. f�.1 NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION • We are concerned citizens who live near and have an interest in the development of the Colusa Circle. We desire sensible development that is in harmony with the current neighborhood. I We believe the proposed development for Phase 2 (401 Colusa Ave.) and Phase 3 (triangle building bordered by Colusa, Oak View and Santa Fe) should be scaled back to minimize the impacts in the Colusa Circle area on: 1. traffic 2. pedestrian and cyclist safety 3. parking, and 4. view and light access of bordering properties. We therefore advocate the following changes to the proposed developments: ► limiting building heights to two stories ► providing reasonable parking that covers peak periods, including the late afternoon and early evening periods ► protecting view and light access in accordance with existing laws ► requiring a traffic study ► considering Phase 2 and Phase 3 as a whole, addressing cumulative impacts from the two proposed projects, and ► changing building and landscape design to minimize negative impacts on properties in the surrounding areas. Name Address Sig t . Ll l Please fax,signed etitions to 270-738-2597. To be placed on our email list, send an email to ColusaCircleggmail.com. • n � v • NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION We are concerned citizens who live near and have an interest in the development of the Colusa Circle. We desire sensible development that is in harmony with the current neighborhood. We believe the proposed development for Phase 2 (401 Colusa Ave.) and I Phase 3 (triangle building bordered by Colusa, Oak View and Santa Fe) should be scaled back to minimize the impacts in the Colusa Circle area on: 1. traffic 2. pedestrian and cyclist safety 3. parking, and 4. view and light access of bordering properties. We therefore advocate the following changes to the proposed developments: ► limiting building heights to two stories ► providing reasonable parking that covers peak periods, including the late afternoon and early evening periods ► protecting view and light access in accordance with existing laws ► requiring a traffic study ► considering Phase 2 and Phase 3 as a whole, addressing cumulative • impacts from the two proposed projects, and ► changing building and landscape design to minimize negative impacts on properties in the surrounding areas. Name Address Signature r ,JUS 3u �c -�,�� - tc j. T(A 1" 96L D 1 Y� lei=l�/�ti%/� A v 4.e e,lvbe� AT k c o�t�- 46 A4& Please fax,signed petitions to 270-738-2597. To be placed on our email list, send an email to ColusaCirelegmail.com. �l`t NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION We are concerned citizens who live near and have an interest in the development of the Colusa Circle. We desire sensible development that is in harmony with the current neighborhood. We believe the proposed development for Phase 2 (401 Colusa Ave.) and Phase 3 (triangle building bordered by Colusa, Oak View and Santa Fe) should be scaled back to minimize the impacts in the Colusa Circle area on: 1 . traffic 2. pedestrian and cyclist safety j 3. parking, and i� 4. view and light access of bordering properties. We therefore advocate the following changes to the proposed developments; limiting building heights to two stories ► providing reasonable parking that covers peak periods, including the late afternoon and early evening periods ► protecting view and light access in accordance with existing laws ► requiring a traffic study ► considering Phase 2 and Phase 3 as a whole, addressing cumulative • impacts from the two proposed projects, and ► changing building and landscape design to minimize negative impacts on properties in the surrounding areas. Name Address Signature L�✓ZGL. �ll��fJa/GcLc�� l i- A 10a 1.2 A ue 7-AQ;w �i 'Neu 0, 2 (� C�J Q(_ U-'J Irl �av�` � J� y-U Please fax,signed petitions to 270-738-2597. To be placed on our email list, send an email to ColusaCircle@gmail.com. s J • NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION We are concerned citizens who live near and have an interest in the development of the Colusa Circle. We desire sensible development that is in harmony with the current neighborhood. We believe the proposed development for Phase 2 (401 Colusa Ave.) and Phase 3 (triangle building bordered by Colusa, Oak View and Santa Fe) should be scaled back to minimize the impacts in the Colusa Circle area on: 1. traffic 2. pedestrian and cyclist safety 3. parking, and 4. view and light access of bordering properties. We therefore advocate the following changes to the proposed developments: ► limiting building heights to two stories ► providing reasonable parking that covers peak periods, including the late afternoon and early evening periods ► protecting view and light access in accordance with existing laws ► requiring a traffic study ► considering Phase 2 and Phase 3 as a whole, addressing cumulative • impacts from the two proposed projects, and ► changing building and landscape design to minimize negative impacts on properties in the surrounding areas. Name Address Signature 5 t� ' 4. l F 561, o e v� 7S 3 4 Te rr o-o LQ, jT6'- Gz- �� M AK l � VtP eY)ni car 'SOv Son i uy 0 V4*ff�� Please fax,signed petitions to 270-73872597. To be placed on our email list, send an email to ColusaCircle(a mail.com. NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION I � We are concerned citizens who live near and have an interest in the development of the Colusa Circle. We desire sensible development that is in iI harmony with the current neighborhood. I i We believe the proposed development for Phase 2 (401 Colusa Ave.) and Phase 3 (triangle building bordered by Colusa, Oak View and Santa Fe) should be scaled back to minimize the impacts in the Colusa Circle area on.- I. traffic 2. pedestrian and cyclist safety 3. parking, and 4. view and light access of bordering properties. We therefore advocate the following changes to the proposed developments: ► limiting building heights to two stories ► providing reasonable parking that covers peak periods, including the late afternoon and early evening periods ► protecting view and fight access in accordance with existing laws ► requiring a traffic study ► considering Phase 2 and Phase 3 as a whole, addressing cumulative • impacts from the two proposed projects, and ► changing building and landscape design to minimize negative impacts on properties in the surrounding areas. Name Address Signature IZIC couR4EMw6ko 10 Sao Carl6 4vt; t AMS Pleasefax, petitions to 270-738-2597. To be placed on our email list, send.an email to ColusaCircleg mail.com. • • NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION We are concerned citizens who live near and have an interest in the development of the Colusa Circle. We desire ,sensible development that is in harmony with the current neighborhood. We believe the proposed development for Phase 2 (401 Colusa Ave.) and Phase 3 (triangle building bordered by Colusa, Oak View and Santa Fe) should be scaled back to minimize the impacts in the Colusa Circle area on: 1. traffic i 2. pedestrian and cyclist safety 3. parking, and 4. view and light access of bordering properties. We therefore advocate the following changes to the proposed developments: ► limiting building heights to two stories ► providing reasonable parking that covers peak periods, including the late afternoon and early evening periods protecting,view and light access in accordance with existing laws ► requiring a traffic study considering Phase 2 and Phase 3 as a whole, addressing cumulative • impacts from the two proposed projects, and ► changing building and landscape design to minimize negative impacts on properties in the surrounding areas. Name Address Signatu�e �c%�v k/or 3 l4� Avg Y-4 CA 7` 7 Please fax,signed petitions to 270-738-2597. To be placed on our email list, send an email to ColusaCircleg mg_ail.com. • • NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION We are concerned citizens who live near and have an interest in the development of the Colusa Circle. We desire sensible development that is in harmony with the current neighborhood. We believe the proposed development for,Phase 2 (401 Colusa Ave.) and Phase 3 (triangle building bordered by Colusa, Oak View and Santa Fe) should be scaled back to minimize the impacts in the Colusa Circle area on: 1. Traffic 2. Pedestrian and cyclist safety 3. Parking 4. View and light access of bordering properties. We therefore advocate the following changes to the proposed developments: • Limiting building heights to two stories • Providing reasonable parking that covers peak periods, including the late afternoon and early evening periods • Protecting view and light access in accordance with existing laws • Requiring a traffic study • • Considering Phase 2 and Phase 3 as a whole, addressing cumulative impacts from the two proposed projects • Changing building and landscape design to minimize negative impacts on properties in the surrounding areas. Name Address Signature l r /r � LLI� lr. Q� C- �L.��'sC l_ os � � s p� . s . 70g fJ POS I-f E Please fax signed petitions to 270-738-2597. To be placed on our email list, send an email to ColusaCircle@ginail.com. • I I • NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION We are concerned citizens who live near and have an interest in the development of the Colusa Circle. We desire sensible development that is.in harmony with the current neighborhood. We believe the proposed development for,Phase 2 (401 Colusa Ave.) and Phase 3 (triangle building bordered by Colusa, Oak View and Santa Fe) should be scaled back to minimize the impacts in the Colusa Circle area on: 1. Traffic 2. Pedestrian and cyclist safety 3. Parking 4. View and light access of bordering properties. We therefore advocate the following changes to the proposed developments: • Limiting building heights to two stories • Providing reasonable parking that covers peak periods, including the late afternoon and early evening periods • Protecting view and light access in accordance with existing laws • Requiring a traffic study • Considering Phase 2 and Phase 3 as a whole, addressing cumulative • impacts from the two proposed projects • Changing building and landscape design to minimize negative impacts on properties in the surrounding areas. Name Address Signature UA A-IJE- L !D _ Please fax signed petitions to 270-738-2597. To be placed on our email list, send an email to ColusaCircle@gmail.com. - - 9 • NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION We are concerned citizens who live near and have an interest in the development of the Colusa Circle. We desire sensible development that is in harmony with the current neighborhood. We believe the proposed development for,Phase 2 (401 Colusa Ave.) and Phase 3 (triangle building bordered by Colusa, Oak View and Santa Fe) should be scaled back to minimize the impacts in the Colusa Circle area on: 1. Traffic 2. Pedestrian and cyclist safety 3. Parking 4. View and light access of bordering properties. We therefore advocate the following changes to the proposed developments: • Limiting building heights to two stories • Providing reasonable parking that covers peak periods, including the late afternoon and early evening periods • Protecting view and light access in accordance with existing laws • Requiring a traffic study • Considering Phase 2 and Phase 3 as a whole, addressing cumulative impacts from the two proposed projects • Changing building and landscape design to minimize negative impacts on properties in the surrounding areas. Name Address Signatur L�67 V�JlckCt2 Z�� 14A W, D � r Please fax signed petitions to 270-738-2597. To be placed on our email list, send an email to ColusaCircle(a=ail.com. - - - • • NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION We are concerned citizens who live near and have an interest in the development of the Colusa Circle. We desire sensible development that is in harmony'with the current neighborhood. We believe the proposed development for Phase 2 (401 Colusa Ave.) and Phase 3 (triangle building bordered by Colusa, Oak View and Santa Fe) ,should be scaled back to minimize the impacts in the Colusa Circle area on: 1. Traffic 2. Pedestrian and cyclist safety 3. Parking 4. View and light access of bordering properties. We therefore advocate the following changes to the proposed developments: Limiting building heights to two stories • Providing reasonable parking that covers peak periods, including the. late-afternoon and early evening periods • Protecting view-and light access in accordance with existing laws • Requiring a traffic study • Considering Phase 2 and Phase 3 as a whole, addressing cumulative • impacts from the two proposed projects • Changing building and landscape design to minimize negative impacts on properties in the surrounding areas. Name Address Signature �✓ 1, ) Y3 COLUCA I CieVI E /A7 /A Air R 1 S ff � Q •33 ��use /' fi �,�� ,�, r ' �:� \\ l� S�U\�y�t,i C � '�.5 �.n�V a eq •�V�- 1�'2n�4\ \h,e-��21[� l�t n t�(/-n�a^- Please fax signed petitions to 270-738-2597. To"be placed on our email list, send an email to ColusaCircle@gmail.com. x. I NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION We are concerned citizens who live near and have an interest in the development of the Colusa Circle. We desire sensible development that is in harmony with the current neighborhood. We believe the proposed development for Phase 2 (401 Colusa Ave.) and Phase 3 (triangle building bordered by Colusa, Oak View and Santa Fe) should be scaled back to minimize the impacts in the Colusa Circle area on: 1. traffic 2. pedestrian and cyclist safety 3. parking, and 4. view and light access of bordering properties. We therefore advocate the following changes to the proposed developments,- limiting evelopments:limiting building heights to two stories ► providing. reasonable parking that covers peak periods, including the late afternoon and early evening periods ► protecting view and light access in accordance with existing laws ► requiring a traffic study ► considering Phase 2 and Phase 3 as a whole, addressing cumulative • impacts from the two proposed projects, and cKianging building and landscape design to minimize negative impacts on properties in the surrounding areas. Name Address Si nature "TO A- �.mvt U Please fax,signed petitions to 270-738-2597. To be placed on our email list, send an email to ColusaCircle@mnail.com. • i NEIGHBORHOOD (PETITION • We are concerned citizens who live near and have an interest in the development of the Colusa Circle. We desire sensible development that is in harmony with the current neighborhood. We believe the proposed development for Phase 2 (401 Colusa Ave.) and Phase 3 (triangle building bordered by Colusa, Oak View and Santa Fe) should be scaled back to minimize the impacts in the Colusa Circle area on: 1. traffic 2. pedestrian and cyclist safety 3. parking, and 4. view and light access of bordering properties. We therefore advocate the following changes to the proposed developments: ► limiting building heights to two stories ► providing reasonable parking that covers peak periods, including the late afternoon and early evening periods ► protecting view and light access in accordance with existing laws ► requiring a traffic study ► considering Phase 2 and Phase 3 as a whole, addressing cumulative • impacts from the two proposed projects, and ► changing building and landscape design to minimize negative impacts on properties in the surrounding areas. N m Address Signature Please fax,signed petitions to 270-738-2597. To be placed on our email list, send an email to ColusaCircleg inail.com. • i NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION We are concerned citizens who live near and have an interest in the development of the Colusa Circle. We desire sensible development that is in harmony with the current neighborhood. i We believe the proposed development for,Phase 2 (401 Colusa Ave.) and Phase 3 (triangle building bordered by Colusa, Oak View and Santa Fe) should be scaled back to minimize the impacts in the Colusa Circle area on: 1. Traffic 2. Pedestrian and cyclist safety 3. Parking 4. View and light access of bordering properties. We therefore advocate the following changes to the proposed developments: • Limiting building heights to two stories • Providing reasonable parking that covers peak periods, including the late afternoon and early evening periods • Protecting view and light access in accordance with existing laws • Requiring a traffic study • Considering Phase 2 and Phase 3 as a whole, addressing cumulative • impacts from the two proposed projects • Changing building and landscape design to minimize negative impacts on properties in the surrounding areas. -- Name Address Signature JkJ* /�T: r1q3s7d Zclll, A,11 % J S- 01X-- u%J 140 : 9s17V7 n Please fax signed petitions to 270-738-2597. To be placed on our email list, send an email to ColusaCircleggmail.com. - ii 9 M NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION i We are concerned citizens who live near and have an interest in the development of the Colusa Circle. We desire sensible development that is in harmony with the current neighborhood. We believe the proposed development for Phase 2 (401 Colusa Ave.) and Phase 3 (triangle building bordered by Colusa, Oak View and Santa Fe) should be scaled back to minimize the impacts in the Colusa Circle area on: 1. traffic 2. pedestrian and cyclist safety 3. parking, and 4. view and light access of bordering properties. We therefore advocate the following changes to the proposed developments: ► limiting building heights to two stories ► providing reasonable parking that cover's peak periods, including the late afternoon and early evening periods ► protecting view and light access in accordance with existing laws ► requiring a traffic study • considering Phase 2 and Phase 3 as a whole, addressing cumulative impacts from the two proposed projects, and ► changing building and landscape design to minimize negative impacts on properties in the surrounding areas. Name Address Signature r, � cwt��✓� ��-.v��S� ��,('r�� v �` Please fax.signed petitions to 270-738-2597. To be placed on our email list, send an email to ColusaCircle@gmail.com. { NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION • We are concerned citizens who live near and have an interest in the development of the Colusa Circle. We desire sensible development that is in harmony with the current neighborhood. We believe the proposed development for,Phase 2 (401 Colusa Ave.) and Phase 3 (triangle building bordered by Colusa, Oak View and Santa Fe) should be scaled back to minimize the impacts in the Colusa Circle area on: 1. Traffic 2. Pedestrian and cyclist safety 3. Parking 4. View and light access of bordering properties. We therefore advocate the following changes to the proposed developments: Limiting building heights to two stories • Providing reasonable parking that covers peak periods, including the late afternoon and early evening periods • Protecting view and light access in accordance with existing laws • Requiring a traffic study • • Considering Phase 2 and Phase 3 as a whole, addressing cumulative impacts from the two proposed projects • Changing building and landscape design to minimize negative impacts on properties in the surrounding areas. Name Address Sign e b-( �". TV Please fax signed petitions to 270-738-2597. To be placed on our email list, send an email to ColusaCircle2ginail.com. - - - • i • NEIGHBORHOOD (PET'IT'ION We are concerned citizens who live near and have an interest in the development of fihe Colusa Circle. We desire sensible development that is in harmony with the current neighborhood. We believe the proposed development for,Phase 2 (401 Colusa Ave.) and Phase 3 (triangle building bordered by Colusa, Oak View and Santa Fe) should be scaled back to minimize the impacts in the Colusa Circle area on: 1. Traffic 2. Pedestrian and cyclist safety 3. Parking 4. View and light access of bordering properties. We therefore advocate the following changes to the proposed developments: • Limiting building heights to two stories • Providing reasonable parking that covers peak periods, including the late afternoon and early evening periods • Protecting view and light access in accordance with existing laws • Requiring a traffic study • Considering Phase 2 and Phase 3 as a whole, addressing cumulative • impacts from the two proposed projects • Changing building and landscape design to minimize negative impacts on properties in the surrounding areas. Name Address S"'. nature �e 33 Cm w hn PIN 7a7 a(,fit 195 C © vql G 14 3"'6 V 1 �'�a X122 C3Q. M-6� 914--+0� Please fax signed petitions to 270-738-2597. To be placed on our email list, send an email to ColusaCircle@gmail.com. - • r , i NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION We are concerned citizens who live near and have an interest in the development of the Colusa Circle. We desire sensible development that is in harmony with the current neighborhood. We believe the proposed development for Phase 2 (401 Colusa Ave.) and Phase 3 (triangle building bordered by Colusa, Oak View and Santa Fe) should be scaled back to minimize the impacts in the Colusa Circle area on: 1. traffic 2. pedestrian and cyclist safety 3. parking, and 4. view and light access of bordering properties. We therefore advocate the following changes to the proposed developments; ► limiting building heights to two stories ► providing reasonable parking that covers peak periods, including the late afternoon and early evening periods ► protecting view and light access in accordance with existing laws requiring a traffic study • considering Phase 2 and Phase 3 as a whole, addressing cumulative impacts from the two proposed projects, and ► changing building and landscape design to minimize negative impacts on properties in the surrounding areas. Name Address Signature LR R -1 J! 6 t-m q'i TWT- 1�S 0 v Avlj�) Cf� �I �d� l er 14, 1 Please fax,signed petitions to 271 38-2� 77'K be�']aced on our email list send an email to ColusaCircle(a) rnail.com. • NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION We are concerned citizens who live near and have an interest in the-- development of the Colusa Circle. We desire sensible development that is in harmony with the current neighborhood. i We believe the proposed development for Phase 2 (401 Colusa Ave.) and Phase 3 (triangle building bordered by Colusa, Oak View and Santa Fe) should be scaled back to minimize the impacts in the Colusa Circle area on: 1. traffic 2. pedestrian and cyclist safety 3. parking, and 4. view and light access of bordering properties. We therefore advocate the following changes to the proposed developments; ►� limiting building heights to two stories ► providing reasonable parking that covers peak periods, including the late afternoon and early evening periods ► protecting view and light access in accordance with existing laws 9 requiring a traffic study ► considering Phase 2 and Phase 3 as a whole, addressing cumulative j ! • impacts from the two proposed projects, and ► changing building and landscape design to minimize negative impacts on properties in the surrounding areas. Name Address Signature Y V z 'a 0-, Please fax,signed petitions to 270-738-2597. To be placed on our email list, send an email to ColusaCircle(c�=ail.com. • i NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION • We are concerned citizens who live near and have an interest in the development of the Colusa Circle. We desire sensible development that is in harmony with the current neighborhood. We believe the proposed development for Phase 2 (401 Colusa Ave.) and Phase 3 (triangle building bordered by Colusa, Oak View and Santa Fe) should be scaled back to minimize the impacts in the Colusa Circle area on: 1 . Traffic 2. Pedestrian and cyclist safety 3. Parking 4. View and light access of bordering properties. We therefore advocate the following changes to the proposed developments: • Limiting building heights to two stories • Providing reasonable parking that covers peak periods, including the late afternoon and early evening periods • Protecting view and light access in accordance with existing laws • Requiring a traffic study • Considering Phase 2 and Phase 3 as a whole, addressing cumulative • impacts from the two proposed projects • Changing building and landscape design to minimize negative impacts on properties in the surrounding areas. Name Address Sig na�tu�re r 041 lel B . ,f✓ i c , �M n tq Please fax signed petitions to 270-738-2597. To be placed on our email list, send an email to ColusaCircleggmail.com. • i I • NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION We are concerned citizens who live near and have an interest in the development of the Colusa Circle. We desire sensible development that is in harmony with the current neighborhood. We believe the proposed development for Phase 2 (401 Colusa Ave.) and Phase 3 (triangle building bordered by Colusa, Oak View and Santa Fe) should be scaled back to minimize the impacts in the Colusa Circle area on: 1 . Traffic 2. Pedestrian and cyclist safety 3. Parking 4. View and light access of bordering properties. We therefore advocate the following changes to the proposed developments: • Limiting building heights to two stories • Providing reasonable parking that covers peak periods, including the. late afternoon and early evening periods Protecting view and light access in accordance with existing laws • Requiring a traffic study • Considering Phase 2 and Phase 3 as a whole, addressing cumulative • impacts from the two proposed projects • Changing building and landscape design to minimize negative impacts on properties in the surrounding areas. cName Address, / Signature Please fax signed petitions to 270-738-2597. To be placed on our email list, send an email to ColusaCircle@gmail.com. • i NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION We are concerned citizens who live near and have an interest in the development of the Colusa Circle. We desire sensible development that is in harmony with the current neighborhood. We believe the proposed development for,Phase 2 (401 Colusa Ave.) and Phase 3 (triangle building bordered by Colusa, Oak Vi&A( and Santa Fe) should be scaled back to minimize the impacts in the Colusa Circle area on: 1. Traffic 2. Pedestrian and cyclist safety 3. Parking 4. View and light access of bordering properties. We therefore advocate the following changes to the proposed developments: • Limiting building heights to two stories • Providing reasonable parking that covers peak periods, including the late afternoon and early evening periods • Protecting view and light access in accordance with existing laws • Requiring a traffic study • • Considering Phase 2 and Phase 3 as a whole, addressing cumulative impacts from the two proposed projects • Changing building and landscape design to minimize negative impacts on properties in the surrounding areas. Flame Address Signature 66dba,cC'LFoTde I&f 5A 'o— c -A110 9. Cl- 4v, ZZ, bo - - Please fax signed petitions to 270-738-2597. To be placed on our email list, send an email to ColusaCircle@gmail.com. - c, • NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION We are concerned citizens who live near and have an interest in the development of the Colusa Circle. We desire sensible development that is in harmony with the current neighborhood. We believe the proposed development for Phase 2 (401 Colusa Ave.) and Phase 3 (triangle building bordered by Colusa, Oak View and Santa Fe) should be scaled back to minimize the impacts in the Colusa Circle area on: 1. Traffic 2. Pedestrian and cyclist safety 3. Parking 4. View and light access of bordering properties. We therefore advocate the following changes to the proposed developments: • Limiting building heights to two stories • Providing reasonable parking that covers peak periods, including the. late afternoon and early evening periods • Protecting view and light access in accordance with existing laws • Requiring a traffic study • • Considering Phase 2 and Phase 3 as a whole, addressing cumulative impacts from the two proposed projects • Changing building and landscape design to minimize negative impacts on properties in the surrounding areas. Name Address Signatur a Av,,- hWqLA Please fax signed petitions to 270-738-2597. To be placed on our email list, send an email to ColusaCircle@gmail.com. • E — E - • NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION We are concerned citizens who live near and have an interest in the development of the Colusa Circle. We desire sensible development that is in harmony with the current neighborhood. We believe the proposed development for Phase 2 (401 Colusa Ave.) and Phase 3 (triangle building bordered by Colusa, Oak View and Santa Fe) should be scaled back to minimize the impacts in the Colusa Circle area on: 1. Traffic 2. Pedestrian and cyclist safety 3. Parking 4. View and light access of bordering properties. We therefore advocate the following changes to the proposed developments: • Limiting building heights to two stories • Providing reasonable parking that covers peak periods, including the late afternoon and early evening periods • Protecting view and light access in accordance with existing laws • Requiring a traffic study • • Considering Phase 2 and Phase 3 as a whole, addressing cumulative impacts from the two proposed projects • Changing building and landscape desig-n'tb minimize negative impacts on properties in the surrounding areas. Name/ p Address QgZgture {j�rci�►��" Y�►'c czr-�I S cxo (o oo C..,Ti % Qceak Vi cw kill,, s o �„�,, ,51:'G�y-fir' ��r �7�'s�r�/`�'`� �'�✓g CJ''G`��cy,�. (/,ur10 /�'P��,� ��c1' �i'( � v `r� Please fax signed petitions to 270-738-2597. To be placed on our email list, send an email to ColusaCircle(?Rmail.com. - • NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION We are concerned citizens who live near and have an interest in the development of the Colusa Circle. We desire sensible development that is in harmony with the current neighborhood. We believe the proposed development for Phase 2 (401 Colusa Ave.) and Phase 3 (triangle building bordered by Colusa, Oak View and Santa Fe) should be scaled back to minimize the impacts in the Colusa Circle area on: 1 . traffic 2. pedestrian and cyclist safety 3. parking, and 4. view and light access of bordering properties. We therefore advocate the following changes to the proposed developments: ► limiting building heights to two stories ► providing reasonable parking that covers peak periods, including the late afternoon and early evening periods ► protecting view and light access in accordance with existing laws ► requiring a traffic study ► considering Phase 2 and Phase 3 as a whole, addressing cumulative • impacts from the two proposed projects, and ► changing building and landscape design to minimize negative impacts on properties in the surrounding areas. Name Address Signa`ure fi 1 4i Please fax.signed petitions to 270-738-2597. To be placed on our email list, send an email to ColusaCircle&gmail.com. • it - - I NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION • We are concerned citizens who live near and have an interest in the development of the Colusa Circle. We desire sensible development that is in i harmony with the current neighborhood. We believe the proposed development for Phase 2 (401 Colusa Ave.) and Phase 3 (triangle building bordered by Colusa, Oak View and Santa Fe) should be scaled back to minimize the imparts in the Colusa Circle area on: 1 . traffic 2. pedestrian and cyclist safety 3. parking, and 4. view and light access of bordering properties. We therefore advocate the following changes to the proposed developments: ► limiting building heights to two stories ► providing reasonable parking that covers peak periods, including the late afternoon and early evening periods ► protecting view and light access in accordance with existing laws ► requiring a traffic study ► considering Phase 2 and Phase 3 as a whole, addressing cumulative • impacts from the two proposed projects, and ► changing building and landscape design to minimize negative impacts on properties in the surrounding areas. Name Address Signature r Q -Tod ami LID Cal Ave- F70 • c Please fax.signed petitions to 270-738-2597. To be placed on our email list, send an email to ColusaCircle@maj.l.com. I NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION We are concerned citizens who live near and have an interest in the development of the Colusa Circle. We desire sensible development that is in harmony with the current neighborhood. We believe the proposed development for,Phase 2 (401 Colusa Ave.) and Phase 3 (triangle building bordered by Colusa, Oak View and Santa Fe) should be scaled back to minimize the impacts in the Colusa Circle area on: 1. Traffic 2. Pedestrian and cyclist safety 3. Parking 4. View and light access of bordering properties. We therefore advocate the following changes to the proposed developments: • Limiting building heights to two stories • Providing reasonable parking that covers peak periods, including the late afternoon and early evening periods • Protecting view and light access in accordance with existing laws • Requiring a traffic study • Considering Phase 2 and Phase 3 as a whole, addressing cumulative • impacts from the two proposed projects Changing building and landscape design to minimize negative impacts on properties in the surrounding areas. Name Address Signature iw,-1 CQ _ � uC 530 3 , Please fax signed petitions to 270-73 8-2597. To.be placed on our email list, send an email to ColusaCircleQgmail.com. - • NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION We are concerned citizens who live near and have an interest in the development of the Colusa Circle. We desire sensible development that is in harmony with the current neighborhood. We believe the proposed development for,Phase 2 (401 Colusa Ave.) and Phase 3 (triangle building bordered by Colusa, Oak View and Santa Fe) should be scaled back to minimize the impacts in the Colusa Circle area on: 1. Traffic 2. Pedestrian and cyclist safety 3. Parking 4. View and light access of bordering properties. We therefore advocate the following changes to the proposed developments: • Limiting building heights to two stories • Providing reasonable.parking that covers peak periods, including the late afternoon and early evening periods • Protecting view and light access in accordance with existing laws • Requiring a traffic study • • Considering Phase 2 and Phase 3 as a whole, addressing cumulative impacts from the two proposed projects • Changing building and landscape design to minimize negative impacts on properties in the surrounding areas. Name Address S14n e X -W NO OCT-- Please fax signed petitions to 270-73 8-2597. To be placed on our email list, send an email to ColusaCircleggmail.com. - • •---4,_.._,_._...._.�__ __�_.,..__,�____d_-_ ..__,_ ----. .._ lea _ - ---- _..._ af? 're ��._ / EV _ c -1c _ __ - 8/6/2007 46 Dear Mr. Henn: While I welcome an attractive development, I am greatly concerned about the increased commercial density with inadequate parking as currently proposed for Colusa Circle in Kensington. Everytime I drive down Oak View, I wonder how many accidents will result if the proposal for diagonal parking on Oak View and Santa Fe is allowed. There are a number of large vehicles (vans, trucks, SUVs)that block vision and increase the potential for accidents as cars try to back up or see around these vehicles when trying to turn. My understanding is that the proposal for diagonal parking is to accommodate the private developer's desire to not provide sufficient parking for his development. Is the county willing to allow a private party's use of public streets to advance a private development? understand that there was a parking study submitted that was several years old. How relevant is an out-dated parking study? Also, I understand that the study did not extend into the late afternoon-early evening time frame when most traffic congestion occurs. I often am not able to park in the area on in the late afternoon. How relevant is a parking study that does not study the most congested time period? I understand that a traffic study was not conducted? Does the county plan to have a traffic study conducted? I understand that there will be other developments in the very near future. How will all these developments accomdate parking? Is there any plan to consider impacts on parking and traffic from all these developments? Eileen Nottoli • CEQA DETERMINATION ATTACHMENT A ATTACHMENT TO NOTICE OF DETERMINATION FOR DP033047 AS APPROVED BY THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ON AUGUST 14, 2007 COMPLIANCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES OF DP3056-82 ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON JUNE 28, 1983 A. The current parallel parking scheme shall be maintained, and diagonal parking is not provided, on the west side of Santa Fe Avenue. The northbound lane of Santa Fe Avenue shall be a minimum of 15 feet wide, the southbound lane shall be 14 feet wide and a 9 foot west side curb parallel parking lane shall be provided all as required by Condition of Approval 17. The current parallel parking will be maintained on the west side of Santa Fe Avenue. The northbound lane of Santa Fe Avenue shall be in accordance with the standards and requirements of Contra Costa County and the Public Works Department for the angle of parking provided, as well as with the recommendations of the professional off-street parking study provided. B. Condition of Approval number 17 is an adequate provision for delivery access. One on-street loading space shall be provided on Colusa Avenue. Its location shall be approved by the Zoning Administrator; the space shall be clearly signed as parking for loading and unloading vehicles. C. Condition of Approval number 18.13.2 provides for a 15 foot traffic lane and a 9 foot curb parking lane on Oak View Avenue. A 15 foot travel lane and a 9 foot curb parking lane on Oak View Avenue shall be provided. D. The proposed rotary circle at Colusa Circle has been eliminated. The final configuration of Colusa Circle shall be reviewed by the Zoning Administrator prior to approval of phase III and construction of required improvements is a condition to construction of Phase III, as particularly set forth in Condition of Approval 16. • 1 The rotary circle has been eliminated as part of the subject project. The final . configuration of Colusa Circle has been reviewed and approved as part of a Public Works capital improvement project in 1985, and has been completed before the construction of Phase III. E. Diagonal parking is provided on Santa Fe and Oak View Avenues thereby increasing the on-street parking supply. Diagonal parking is being provided on Santa Fe and Oak View Avenues thus increasing the on-street parking supply. Because the project's square footage has been reduced approximately 28%, and 13 off-street parking spaces are being provided, the net effect of the modifications would increase the overall availability of parking, even if the diagonal on-street parking on Santa Fe Avenue was not provided. The previously approved project added only 14 new on-street spaces while 13,000 +/- net leasable square feet of new building would be constructed. The modified project without the diagonal parking on Santa Fe Avenue would add 18 total spaces (13 off-street and 5 on-street spaces) with a smaller addition of 8000 +/-square feet of net leasable space further reducing impacts on area parking availability. F. A soils/geologic report shall be prepared and submitted as required in the attached Condition of Approval number 12. Any special construction measures identified shall be included as a condition or requirement in necessary building permits or other appropriate construction approvals or permits. A condition of approval requires that a soils/geologic report be prepared and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit or other appropriate construction approval permits. 2 EXCERPT FROM BOARD OF SUPERVISORS APPROVED BOARD ORDER FOR DP3056-82, ADOPTED JUNE 28, 1983, MAKING THE FINDINGS REGARDING THE PROJECT'S COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (Full Copy Attached as Part of 1983 Conditions and Plans) 3. The Conditional Negative Declaration which was posted-constitutes a mitigated Negative Declaration based upon the initial study which found that there were significant environmental effects of the project, but that ` such effects could be mitigated as set forth in the traffic and parking study and by preparation of a soils/geologic report prior to construction and by requirement of any identified special construction measures. Said environmental effects have been clearly mitigated, as set. forth in detail below, by revisions to the project plans made by the applicant and by enforceable conditions of approval binding the Applicant to include mitiga- tion measures in the project. With such mitigation, the project as approved will not have a significant effect on the environnrnt. The speci- fic mitigation measures are: _A. Zfie current parallel parking scheme shall be maintained, and diagonal parking is not provided, on the west side of Santa Fe Avenue. The nortE�und lane of Santa Fe Avenue shall be a minimum of 15 feet wide, the southbound lane shall be 14 feet wide and a 9 foot west side curb parallel parking lane shall be provided all as required by Condition of Approval 17. B. Condition of Approval number 17- is an adequate provision for delivery access. C. Condition of Approval number 18.B.2 provides for a 15 foot traffic lane and a 9 foot curb parking lane on Oak View Avenue. D. ne proposed rotary circle.at Colusa Circle has been elimi- nated. 7be final configuration of Colusa Circle shall be reviewed by the Zoning Administrator prior to approval of phase III and construction of required improvements is a con- - dition to construction of Phase III, as particularly set forth in Condition of Approval 16. E. Diagonal parking is provided on Santa Fe and Oak View Avenues thereby increasing the on-street parking supply. F. A soils/geologic report shall be prepared and submitted as required in the attached Condition of Approval number 12. Any special construction measures identified shall be included as a condition or requirement in necessary building permits or other appropriate construction approvals or per- mits. y bra �; Planning Department Costa County Initial Study OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE - Planning Department K Filed !J9 Administration Building, N Wmg c� Pine & Escobar Streets n,rri Concurrent Application �S�'/LO Martinez, California 94553 j*. , 7� Prepared by Date L--4`91 41Mk' ` «y �x rAc;j Reviewed by v Date RECOMMENDATIONS: �, sr+ '• ( )Categorical Exemption (Class )( )Negative Declaration ( )Environment Impact Report Requiredi (✓lConditional Neg.Declaration (Owner/Applicant must agree to mitigation in writ' 1ng)� � rheAProject 05NJ6)(WiII Not) Have A Significant Effect On The .Environment rhe'recommendation is based on the following (List all 'items 'identified as significant). IAye TUI/b S/i A//G/�.q/v � IMPACTS OF /b �olFa-w/LL fMVE t M a1v t /M/JACT n V Z2�iPF/C .O^eV PA t(/.Nb //v r�F� q, A TR apF K-.SAA K/N� �D/Na5 PlE6/Lr P/C F�B1teP L3Y An/ /w/�__ A/DdA/7 CaA/SULJ 7 or/txavcr T7YE+�rm vArrS AVD 57U66�cAr5 M/rrGA77A/V' 4^6A2f40l!1F5 FnP 771EM. 7.YE ^7W14`.;' c/� /rni�,g.Nr /MP r /57HE r@tfEYr 7N4r- W/5 /�/40T6G7'f✓/t L yA✓f n r ruo t}Py aivrx o E7H rb L//s.dr/r7 c"> ,r}/{FA . CoA/S/.deR/N6 77lE OR-ESEA/7 CzAr_- XEA,THE s- or Lo / I-A odE• 1,-nWAeFA /rf/Lf ✓r 4R F SC/C/O NC d>t N5 O!/L/L >7//5 r�i SECT /Zppos" . i n 4 +—T��1° jj/A/ /116A51/.CR r1,'�.4oda2 se /ltAr�.arns /V o•✓-5/G,A//i/Ga.vT, '� Mat Changes To The Project Would Litigate The Identified Impacts (List mitigation measures for lny significant impacts and Conditional Negative Declaration). l S/JBM/T A.PF .ok1?.K1,/,-,7-y 7D 19/5CCJS5 /AAA4-C7's 6/—�Gr!/ Ld/oiNF../T,•/NO CbSe/d L6 e /W/776-A77CA/eAEASag es C.asrtEaoy ACCo�WNs/+�D , � _ t• 75 aAM/T A /L c -GEo cob C,/l i�r o A--77APo eW-"10lM"7* PK IOX 7a 6241sTt Ami�vr3, E E/� SflOULO =irTJ../NE,Qn/Tl •�.vEC/AL N�A'I G7kW A.tEASL'/Z�S 77/AT ltAvt TD 136 no/KFN. � I i .GS Quad Sheet «^'loH0 Zoning Atlas Sheet# N'6 Parcel# L= / 2-. NERAL CONSIDERATIONS: 5�/ �� ooq General Plan considerations (A) Land use designation, (B),Area plan name an i t tdKl r (C) Date, (D) Specify any conflicts with proposal): /3us/.1,C 5 CAI .:a lV'.S/I16.7an/ G6-NEIL9L /�/-r4N/4.OMENOME.vT . 2 Zoning district (A) Specify current and (6) Proposed, (C) Specify any conflicts and (D)variances requested): Cc, r"A/T- /ZE7ly/� L�vs/N�ss /sem=oe .ti,osrmv nrf oaera.o Ot=✓ESOPM6YN'r-ON/i A7K C6L SCONYr)S'K /i+E/'rOM/4Y A'cSrLIE n �� /�/irrPosED-f7LINNty r/u/r °,:• ,O/STHKr CP`/�. l/AA:/ANcf r'Zi'6tlJGY71C -1 DC✓E.o,dMsvr A� 7a Liter 4Jl357NA0V Mr.VI~M/VRµ//J/� 3�p�Ii Nature. of request or proposed land use:z2i/s /s.a rLFnuc�r ry ,rE�ac,rcoP rkaeE trodc�,r T L F/N AS /lEA C1L4e�' Iq CSV`4•� r1Y! A T O� S.�N iF/TTFLA/7J/�hRl.4 ,,r �t _. V SCM/LgV rA,V^'� - 6rri✓Ei'N A AN/J OAK LVD AWVAr.V.* Y 2Br 7�. A/;CA,(�ET7✓E6N SA-SwNTF fL i s A.vo 0.4IC D�4O. f/56'S P/1DPOSCD A/tE/pr{ L CPM Mr L �r+o�screw�c o >i r�.aN eanavc w7. 4G ' "Site desc" 1"ipption and existing and neighboring land use: r±e 7wAr. c a AyAL—df F DEUELnPBJ ol�A/(r�7 0el/GLp/�ELJ fbY [puu��[/A� l/eEs s plena No//R- P ,,� :..GLYVVI'1CRLlA'L L�bL'c •�-••,voR rk,ct SAM/�Y AiNO M(lLT7PLE_CA/+'l//-Y USE'S. is-:. r ` 5 "Note any previous applications on the site (if EIRs recommended, listing EIRs Y; prepared for nearby projects).,d& /zF_CLA/T.aP.1V/cA77&Azro..-r> A.4" sE OwEe-/rs Fol 5--1t✓/C_- 67-A770AI.s R- 6 Does it appear that any feature of the project will 2-yes []no ❑maybe tt generate significant public concern? (Nature of concern):-rov�A /z/✓ ov�/z SARK/4,e- I //Nf1ACrS b.�D/=✓CLOPMENT G/I/ S r2/LO/NL7/.y /rlf?tA. (!7. Will the project require approval or permits by other Dyes bio than a County agency? Agency namests) Is the project within.:the Sphere of Influence of an P Y city? (Name)F� CE/LRI79 9r � i NVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ANALYSIS: S=Significant N=Negligible C=Cumulative No=None U=Unknown 1. Water. Will the project result in: a) Is any portion of the project within a Flood Hazard Area? S❑NES C NOO b) Reduction of surface or ground water quality or quantity? ❑ ❑ ❑ I c) Increased runoff or alteration to drainage patterns and ❑ 1B,[I [I ❑ streams? d) Erosion of or sedimentation in a body of water? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 2. Earth. (Consider the Seismic Safety Element) Will the proposal 1' result in or be subject to: !' a) Is any portion of the project within an Alquist-Priolo Act i Special Studies Zone? (if yes, date County Geologist notified ❑YES [�]NO i b) Potentially hazardous geologic or soils Conditions on or S N C NO U immediately adjoining the site? (slides, springs, erosions, liqui- s.�v-�E-/ro�no 11614�N' faction, earthquake faults; consider prime soils, slope, septic �f,�,ll(/sZ.s5 z tank limitations). Cite any geologic or engineering reports. b ,} ot[50X� -Y 0 (County Geologist consulted.) Covy /E/ iH d 1�i�dlE(JED P�ZOPOSAc /2ELOMMfNPS So/LS- ��t�s� n /'A/0RrV °vs N❑ c) Grading (consider height amount, steepness and visibility of El 21 ❑ proposed slopes; consider effect of grading on trees, creek El YES [E NO channels and ridge tops)(Are there any grading plans?) . 3. Plant/Animal Life. S N C NO U a) Will there be a reduction or disturbance to any habitat for ❑ plants and animals? (including removal or disturbance of trees) ❑ El ❑ _,___�� r--- . $EVE/tA/-7/C6E3 rVLUF REMOvav lv/-NA5F Al,' 'V55 lt?LX REvesl&n/ ._. g� b) 4115e Project affect the habitat of any rare, endangered or �, ❑ E unique species located on or near the site? El E) ❑ C) What vegetation (habitat) types exist on the site (give relative % or proportions if significant)? List habitat types. AV14 alA/6 s "A'S - TREES - 3Ojo S N C NO U ' 4. Air. Will the Project result in deterioration of existing air quality, including creation of objectionable odors, or will future project ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ residents be subjected to significant pollution levels? 5. Noise. Will the project result in: 0 xR.I a) Is any portions of the project within the 1990, 60 dBA Noise ❑YES Contour? (check Noise Element at 1000 scale maps) �II b) Increases from existing noise levels? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ I ;.! 6. Ener /Natural Resources/Hazards (Consider General Plan, Safety " and Seismic Safety Elements). Will the projects result in: . El11Q'Q" ❑ a) Any additional consumption of energy? Nil ,i b) Affect the potential use, extraction, conservation or depletion ❑ ❑ ❑ CR" ❑ of a natural resource? c) Increase risk of explosion, release of hazardous substances ❑ CD C3 ❑ or other dangers to public health and safety? /veA/ZEST NA-2*1W0V5 AIA67F 5/TF - ;.M/IES No/2;r/ h/057 - A ltA§/J/tZ iFAEA. 7. Utilities end P' 6j a~Service. will the project: a a) Require alteration or addition to or the need for new utility systems (including sphere of influence or district boundary _ change; water, sewer, solid waste)? ED YES O b) Result in the need for new or expansion of the following services: fire and police protection, F -)Is, parks and ecreation, roads, flood control or other is works fac- ilities, public transit or governmental services (include changes to sphere of influence)? May !'HA✓E ra "8011-0 5A- ❑ [y [P� ❑ ❑ 5EM/6R MAAA13- !NC/(EAtE faC svKc PCoftONN CMsrtE dU/+OwFSI c) Affect recreational opportunities (consider General Plan Recreation Element-Trails Plans)? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 8. Transportation/Circulation. (Consider the Major Roads Plan) Will the project result in: a) Additional traffic generation or increase in circulation pro- blems (consider road design, access, congestion, parking and accident potential)? CONCf','N O✓E/Z PAAXI'Ve.<ANba'S71oA: ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ r/UFF/C- /1A14K1oV6- /k.E/VXr SU1/KIrmF b) Special transportation considerations (waterborne, rail, air or public transportation systems and parking facilities)? dEs16N ov /QLo-c;A C 1 CA-E 77Z. Ff/C •D/Pf/Z - R AcOEs/6.J �OAOS rD X -/M IAIA7-E C/R6U c) Increase in commuting to and from local community? ❑ Q' C9' ❑ ❑ 9. Housing and Community Development. (Consider Housing Ele- ment). Is the project: a) Located within a Neighborhood Preservation Area? ❑YES E�-90 b) Is there an opportunity for construction of low and moderate D3" income housing? El YES (�NO 10. Cultural Resources. a) Review by the Regional Clearinghouse? (their recommend- ❑YES ❑ NO ation)? No gr?/-Y YET-. Date b) Any nearby County Historic Sites (Consider Historical • Resources Inventory) 1y 6,,T r+�572s/t K- S/ -C[>KT7N NousE NritZ /�A20iv Srffr�G 20001 Al/.k/: pF S/T� 11. Aesthetics. (Consider the Scenic Routes Element) Will the project obstruct any public scenic vista or view, create an aesthetically offensive site open to public view, or produce new light or glare? ❑YES [RNO 12. Is this project a growth-inducing action (encourage additional requests for similar uses) or set a precedent in the area? s•1k vr7A/6- ❑ YES 219-0 ,10AAN ia,c C1AC<c - 411V01AF,<Gi2Ov.vv Ur/A-/r7FS1'/Eo9E ff�2eA`5 /}p/'EA41Z4NcE. 13. Mandatory Findings of Significance. (A "yes" answer on any of the following questions requires preparation of an EIR) i .. a) Does the prgject have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, -or curtail the diversity in the environ- ment? ❑YES ®' I�O b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? El YES �O c) Does the project have impacts which are individually lim- ited, but cumulatively considerable? ❑YES �O d) Does the project have environmental impacts which will CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT . NOTICE OF ❑ Completion of Environmental Impact Report ® Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT P.O. Box 951 Martinez, California 94553 Telephone: (415) 372- 2031 Contact Person Arthur Beresford Project Description and Locration: EDWARD Y. HAMMONDS (Applicant and Owner), County File #3056-82: The applicant requests approval of a final development plan for retail shops, offices and restaurant on several lots in the Colusa Circle commercial area in Kensington. Subject property is described as follows: Lots 1 thru 7 including Blk. N; Lots 1, Blk. L; and Lots 1 and 2, Blk. J, Amended Map of Berkeley Park Subdivision, fronting on the Colusa Avenue-Colusa Circle commercial area, in the Kensington area. (R-B, R-6) (ZA: N6) (CT 3910) (Parcel #571-331-01 thru 03, 571-320-09 and 571-311-01 and 02) iThe Project Will Not Have A Significant Effect On The Environment This project will have two significant impacts on a very specific nature. First, the project will have a major impact on traffic and parking in the area. A traffic-parking study has been prepared by an independent consultant.. The report outlines these impacts and suggests mitigation measures for them. The other significant impact is the effect that this 'project will have on the appearance of the Colusa Circle area. Considering the present state area, the project should improve the appearance of the area while there are serious concerns over this projects, the proposed mitigation measures will render the adverse impacts non-significant. ❑ Justification for Negative Declaration is attached. ❑ The Environmental Impact Report is available for review at the address below: Contra Costa County Planning Department 4th Floor, North Wing, Administration Building Pine & Escobar Streets Martinez, California Review Period for Environmental Impact Report or Negative Declaration: February 15, 1983 Ithru T rch 1 , 1983 By AP 9 R3/79 Planning Department Repoentative P moi; ing Departnl" ' J Contra cle County Administration Building, North Wing Costa} P.O. Box 951 County . Martinez, California 94553 > Anthony•A.-Dehaesus Director of Planning Phone: 372-2024 'Qebruary 15, 198 Edward Y I-?ammonds .384 Colusa Circle Kensinpton, CA 94707 Dear Applicant: The Contra Costa County E Tanning Department has completed an initial study of the environmental significance of the project represented by your pending application bearing County File Number ='03-'-83 In conformance with Contra Costa County Guidelines for implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA) it has been determined that your project (wll{) (will not) have a significant effect on the environment. Your project falls within the following category: (X) AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) IS NOT REQUIRED. ( 1 The project is categorically exempt (Class ( ) The CEQA requirements are accommodated by the EIR previously prepared for (X ) A statement that an EIR is not required (Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance) has been filed by the Planning Department (unless appealed). (X ) Other: 7,407CE OF PREPARATION ( ) AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT IS REQUIRED. ( ) The complexity of your project requires your submission of additional special reports or information ( as outlined on the attached sheet ) ( which will be outlined in a forthcoming letter I. ( ► A consultant will be hired to prepare the environmental impact report.This procedure is explained on the attached sheet. Preparation of the EIR cannot be started until the fee and additional information requested is received by the Planning Department. If you have questions concerning this determination, or desire additional information relative to environmental impact report regulations, please call 372- 20TIand ask for-arth zr T?eresford Sincerely yours, Anthony A. Dehaesus Director of Planning AP 8 R3/79 Bv: -Iva— s • x ' ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ANALYSIS: S=Significant N=Negligible C=Cumulative No=None U=Unknown 7. 1. Water. Will the project result in: a) Is any portion of the project within a Flood Hazard Area? ❑YES nN0 S N C NO ��11 b) Reduction of surface or ground water quality or quantity? ❑ E, ❑ ❑ CJ c) Increased runoff or alteration to drainage patterns and streams? ❑ E3' ❑ ❑ ❑ ':i.Q:_kV�iiyw%!�v-.ln.,i�.At?O,l!.•:�h`-"�SF0.'SV^bnML'1bt��'NJ 4.�.,�,�.Fr:,a-.Y.'++-.ay.:n•Mz.-:om,.y.,.i„�,.ay.;�i d) Erosion of or sedimentation in a body of water? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 2. Earth. (Consider the Seismic Safety Element) Will the proposal result in or be subject to: 6 a) Is any portion of the project within an Alquist-Priolo Act B" � Special Studies Zone? (if yes, date County Geologist notified ' ❑YES LJ NO b) Potentially hazardous geologic or soils conditions on or S N C NO U immediately adjoining the site? (slides, springs, erosions, liqui- 7,Y .c- r/ERRA�°A^ faction, earthquake faults; consider prime soils, slope, septic VAPTX 'ercn°.vsor/'.t°JFrr ' � r. ... tank limitations). Cite any geologic or engineering reports. CMF- c072 (County Geologist consulted?) YF-5 - Gon Nr'l FrFntn�15T HAS �IguceS F°ri n0v r. 011 A,011,-NEDtoRAA9,;A4 /cyeRn 0#- Ar 4.ew5r7tuc77.•V. c) Grading (consider height amount, steepness and visibility of ❑ ED' ❑ ❑ ❑ - proposed slopes; consider effect of grading on trees, creek channels and ridge tops)(Are there any grading plans?) ❑YES aNO c 3. Plant/Animal Life. ....w.--� ?=• +• o�r+�•�+:v�.s+t S N C NO U r " .` a) Will there be a reduction or disturbance to any habitat for plants and animals? (including removal or disturbance of trees) ❑ EB" ❑ 1:1 El-.�R6-i 77,009f-D ArREMOVEO- r°.&FKFtPfAC'CPA5 j-A"-7 OF 57jL6Cr 7-AEF R.UM7NG P20G/LAM• b) Will the Project affect the habitat of any rare, endangered or unique species located on or near the site? ❑ ❑ ❑ ED-- ❑ c) What vegetation (habitat) types exist on the site (give relative % or proportions if significant)? List habitat types. _,OA✓po C-?,A 5 rrtl r s _ 9. Air. Will the Project result in deterioration of existing air quality, S N C NO U - including creation of objectionable odors, or will future project residents be subjected to significant pollution levels? ❑ Er ❑ ❑ ❑ rr+ S`�T• :. t .-, i.;� /10951 DA./ e/L/✓DTN UN idM W ITAF6TAU/ZANT- L3i AA<E✓/A Tr- B}7 2 O/�i/t/•7JONi 5. Noise. Will the project result in: a) Is any portions of the project within the 1990, 60 dBA Noise ❑YES E-NO Contour? (check Noise Element at 1000 scale maps) b) Increases from existing noise levels? ❑ E9'�❑ ❑ ❑ 6. Ener /Natural Resources/Hazards (Consider General Pian, Safety and Seismic Safety Elements). Will the projects result in: a) Any additional consumption of energy? ❑ Q� [� ❑ ❑ b) Affect the potential use, extraction, conservation or depletion -.h, ..::. .:.:...:.....yam,. of a naturalresource? ❑ ❑ ❑ D� ❑ ' c) Increase risk of explosion, release of hazardous substances 1/ or other dangers tp ppublic health and safety? ❑ [7 ❑ ❑ ❑ A.E-4,Zcsr//Aa^1/ Gbt15 A/A5TF5/rF- 2 ,VotZTN•#✓esr iV 1 MONO /cN NA/03aK. ,4 1 rA 7. Utilities and Public Service. Will theJ ro•ec t P a) Require alteration or addition to or the need for new utility systems (including sphere of influence or district boundary „ change; water, sewer, solid waste)? ❑YES �N0 rCS•r �{ t R y+•ti'kS;S ssc,i��Zv:_.iq v-.:aw�'.'!,•.�.-_�ra=..:'_...:iedsi ' • w -^'� S N C NO U b) Result in the need for new or expansion of the following _ services: fire and police protection, schools, parks and recreation, roads, flood control or other public works fac- ilities, public transit or governmental services (include changes to sphere of influence)? ^AAY RA✓c rn Klavao 5~r ❑ D_ M-1 ❑ ❑ 3Eh16R ,MA i.Yj- /•vC�Aff Potf/.tt PRolfObN CM/KE,d U/aflWGS1 c) Affect recreational opportunities (consider General Plan Recreation Element-Trails Plans)? ❑ ❑ ❑ E3" ❑ 8. Transportation/Circulation. (Consider the Major Roads Plan) Will the project result in: a a) Additional traffic generation or increase in circulation pro- blems (consider road design, access, congestion, parking and - accident potential)? CONcE/zN D✓Ert PAXK/�'�CGH'brSno./. C� ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ -_ -_ - j-/jpfr/G-/�AitK/.✓i /LE/�/CT 5U3µ/T7Fla b) Special transportation considerations (waterborne, rail, air or public transportation systems and parking facilities)? //Es/s v u aA ;r C 1 AC c E 77Z,",-/C 5 TD E1-1AA IAIATE C/RCI c) Increase in commuting to and from local community? ❑ ❑ " = 9. Housing and Co mmunit Development. (Consider Housing Ele- ment). is the project: a) Located within a Neighborhood Preservation Area? ❑YES NO b) Is there an opportunity for construction of low and moderate income housing? ❑YES EE NO 10. Cultural Resources. a) Review by the Regional Clearinghouse? (their recommend- [D YES ❑ NO ation)? Date b) Any nearby County Historic Sites (Consider Historical Resources Inventory) Al 5.4 A5 sT H 72,/1 tc S/T_— CT7N No t Nc/tZ /�Artyi SCH�L - ZoOa/ A/.A/. OF S/TL- 11. Aesthetics. (Consider the Scenic Routes Element) Will the project obstruct any public scenic vista or view, create an aesthetically offensive site open to public view, or produce new - light or glare? ❑YES C FIO 12. Is this project a growth-inducing action (encourage additional requests for similar uses) or set a precedent in the area? /eNnv6 ❑YES ( O 13. Mandatory Findings of Significance. (A"yes" answer on any of the _ following questions requires preparation of an EIR) a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, or curtail the diversity in the environ- ra•.:?Mx . mant? ED YES r V b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? El YES CIO Does the project have impacts which are individually lim- ited, but cumulatively considerable? El YES E] O d) Does the project have environmental impacts which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either ��,�� directly or indirectly? El YES LINO Discussion: rf+'�'>yMC+�!'_GAYT4.(a�-,ns�},t.�•�+E+�T_i r-y O v 1 JI! LLJ i w u- w Q -J I- z Q m �� P co �� CON rRq �e RETAIL BUSINESS ZONE CALIFORiglA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT NOTICE OF DETERMINATION • CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 651 PINE STREET 4T" FLOOR NORTH WING MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA 94553-0095 Telephone: (925) 335-1205 Contact Person: Michael Henn Project Description, Common Name (if any) and Location: ED HAMMONDS (Applicant) – COLUSA CIRCLE INVESTORS AND WADA FAMILY TRUST (Owners), County File #DP033047: A request for approval to modify DP3056-82 and the conditions of approval, to allow modifications to the approved 1983 Colusa Circle Final Development Plan (FDP). As proposed, the building size would be reduced from the previously approved 19,100 +/- square feet (net leasable) to 13,900 +/- square feet (net leasable) and a 13- car garage parking lot would be developed. The subject project consists of Phases III and IV from the 1983 Final Development Plan and is located on a 0.32 acre property zoned P-1, to be developed with approved retail business and office uses, for the commercial project located at 370 to 388 Colusa Avenue at the intersections with Oak View Avenue and Santa Fe Avenue in the Kensington area. (ZA: N-6) (CT: 3910) (Parcel #571--331-001, 002 & 003) The project was approved on August 14, 2007. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act: An Environmental Impact Report was prepared and certified (SCH # ). The project was encompassed by an Environmental Impact Report previously prepared for • — (SCH # ). 0 A Mitigated Negative Declaration was issued indicating that preparation of an Environmental Impact Report was not required. Attachment A provides background regarding the status of the Adopted Mitigation Measures. Copies of the record of project approval and the Negative Declaration or the final EIR may be examined at the office of the Contra Costa County Community Development Department. UThe project will not have a significant environmental effect. X The project will have a significant environmental effect. X Mitigation measures were made a condition of approval of t roject. .A A statement of overriding considerations was adopted. " Findings were adopted pursuant to Section 15091 of the Stat C�c The project requires discretionary approval from a State Agency. Notice Of Determination sent to Office of Planning and Research. BY Date: By: � n? Community evelopment Representative I - AUG 21 21- JT OF FILING AND POSTING I declare that on �JUU(( I received and posted this notice as required by California Public Resour e Code S tion 21152(c). Sai � w 1 remain osted for 30 days from the filing date. t, 'UNITY CLEn1% Signature �� Title Department of Fish and Game Fees Due: kpplicant's .Jame: Ed Hammonds EIR-$2500 Total Due: $ Address: 384 Colusa Circle X Neg. Dec. -$1800 Total Paid: $ Kensington, CA 94707 DeMinimis Findings-$0 X County Clerk-$50 Receipt# *Notice Of Determination may be sent by fax to(916)323-3018, if followed up with a duplicate mailed copy. G:\Current Planning\curr-plan\Templates\shell\Notice of Determination.doc STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY 315081 DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME ENVIRONMENTAL FILING FEE CASH RECEIPT Lead Agency: ccccoon Date: County/State Agency of Filing: /�— Document No.: Prrject Title: �-F- Project Applicant Name: Project Applicant Address: ( _ u) City � � r- ('.�� State Zip Code hone Number. o� Project Applicant (check appropriate box): • ocal Public Agency F]School District Other Special District E] State Agency E] Private Entity Check ADDlicable Fees: Environmental Impact Report $2500.00 $ W Negative Declaration $1800.00 $ !' Application Fee Water Diversion (State Water Resources Control Board Only) $850.00 $ Projects Subject to Certified Regulatory Programs $850.00 $ ®---ountyAdministrative Fee �� C� $50.00 $ 6 Project that is exempt from fees 7 Notice of Exemption J 11 DFG No Effect Determination(Form Attached) �S -7 TOTAL RECEIVED $ Signature and title of person receiving payment: DEPUTY COUNTY CLERK WHITE-PROJECT APPLICANT YELLOW-DFG/ASB PINK-LEADAGENCY GOLDENROD-COUNTY CLERK DFG 753.5a(Rev.1/07) SITE PLAN PLAN ELEVATIONS rn � rn � r �J ! LjLJ Li T 3 rn N rn Ul N $ N O 0 N e r T V� rt Q O 3 i • F n Er ur n 4F9 7 V (r CA) z � �l N l.� Y 4 L ---------------- ------------ -- ------------------------------- �— Ti, zl Fri \ 4 / m 0 ;A O 2 T m b 1 1` r 1` � N O F-1 r S'+ p ' N c p ' U'v Uc 0 J- n Oj. > >. P P PN fP n m ��9 0 m N O O �j N N N � D UV n v O D C� , O X C CrT OL u) x m 7 D 3a (19 m (Ji N N pl rt, 3 n C Rl N D_ 7 O O m N ��''••--��-••� N O x =HU�$ mfg. i� x 8rn =o_o 7 C �• m e@mho .. O Zt�\ g o p �l m D D Q O i�' n z v�� 9.Q •�� y`Qm3 " j m v n r yp o N o MA -0 z _ m T �m 6v T m \ m 74 O m \ 3o a i m ............................................... ................................................ � -—————— (D aE n R 4 F n n \ ...::. ...:.... � I � r.: r \ t t« V r- + t r >r o ma6 n Q f t f 2 o tt o a a° ® m n 9� va a °' d � m v a. 1 O7 \ D og m 8 �, Pf 2a \ gm ru rn d o E E E s� \00 ID�� o U4 IT � � to .� 41 ^O C o 3, 0� 1 \ Q � a 2 m n a m m a co cn d 8 - 3 m qq C [r1 z •� r�w C'e'i w �' O R -.N J A�A O�^al �`�.V 8 y > R R z 8 4 a 3 o Le gR � N � 8R o nao �n a x o RB o o�y o � F t!1 IT �o-tZ 3A34 e. n ^ rnlg7c ^ O O .-i 8`'c G=1 m m CD 7a 7 c 1 � 3 � O a\D C/) rc a m J m N \\\ O O b� D t' ��p CD m g O m D D 3�gmo - m o ° n Z^ ►— ��' o S m 3 * z 3io Z go�m a D -.- .- .....-.-.-.-.. ........................ .. --—— --——— 3--A--VIN Y�r \ Oo > r g m cn \ � m� \ LIL fa m \\ N � O ,ZL --- d(, m --J r / u CD Z co C) m a � 8 � � 3 1ffi � V' d� � m a m m � o ° C " D r_r z w r n 1 a— Ni-, N CD D masm m ma m T�* N r > 5, Y� 3$ 55 5 N soap g D dng .�� w DmR�3 s � m v n nZ n. N (� ? l� , rT pb D v 1 Z ummv Hi t.�l I •� �ely�.��..f�'_ �; 1111111 ._■�� t�... MV 1 a I 11116�� Mo � !ON r — 5�)J�t `sera e a III IiLll yT�•BK . 11y' iu. 1 u�l��l�� ti4 .�rt,��•aa� ll�7i� � nH AT �;Irl �� y�� e'i.x;�'• ,� � '_ 117 ;��:�„ ,�� _- ■?�L11 ■ III n�a dll+�. ` u IIII 1� I' �� a ��\ � — �� y\�:�•+.1� 'main ,/ rte. ;: .��: c t°`x��`-• �' - ' • • m D � o m t.. aff OPT �� rte.► �. . _ rn � Ul) 03 D rn o v d 3 _ Y - 1Y l -1 O m O 7 CD m"L'� C� CP C aD J N co m tea- c 5n o D D r onD� xa� x rV\O m n D n � �0 3 CD U N v LA Z da qw- U)o) z " T r rn F i O -1 r 1 VIO--= � -.I CD xoom= a'n p °� > OpO r m D G Q i� n V /z� 55 ao x v O n I p ,. C � z J >aNd3 j cmyi O 7 rn o�nv ET- 3Qo� 3 O Dm 5�" V � �r D CD r rn • � u t rt i" CZD O i .Q Q) C) n :3 r-P n' v � L 11 I =m E d u D n CD m� 3o° c CD C<D m Dv i 'P — D 7 p V O D ` nx rp0 pm D D Z N z _ _J DNaom� � v m oDp �a N O� v _ � Z O W. M3 z D o�c a l 0 0 CP li • a.�. . . IV �. ^, ♦ f a ._ .... op a� v i . s, �4 D C - J CD D CSD � °�� ' •-`r;��,:� - -•_- �. .. _ -, a n.. r fly', ow 7-3 �S Cl- test�6 *WAIF rn g it 7 1 1- 1 �O � 1 h N rn8 11 1 t� Yaa•♦s b Q � 0 n � 1 1 n e Re °w � 11 I I 1 .1 M11 MI 1 M 1 fV 90 ma m a$ o o o n O O n m72 O� Cf) >5za3 3 'U fjm LI1 0.p<��n n z 3 m y F, O m U) to r - rn N 11 � o b ° z r CD cg / / / / N Y � r �• 1� �I MSI rn U0 r w 1 � CA OD N II �, oS 7 w r h m r i r- D o � ➢ n � � c Z3 z c� rr r m o� v� IT, $ o$<< = o".3 N R y_n n T n O Ps m m n g :3 c _� M xa g voo� g D D A O (� z o �g \�� xQa o v V 0 �` z A n Z �� --1 sm m C) 2 _ 0 F 0 a _ z =am �D_3 NOTIFICATION LIST 51,D4281001 504281002 504281003 KALDUNSKI-KATO KAREN REMIGIO JOSEPH &ELIZABETH MURRAY JOHN TRE 115 SANTA FE AVE 111 SANTA FE AVE 105 SANTA FE AVE EL CERRITO CA EL CERRITO CA EL CERRITO CA 94530 94530 94530 • 504281004 504281005 504281008 KREILEINE KAROLA JOHANNA NELSON ELLA K TRE MELTON MARTHA TRE 7731 WARD AVE 7715 WARD AVE 1050 NORTHPOINT ST#608 EL CERRITO.CA EL CERRITO CA SAN FRANCISCO CA 94530 94530 94109 504281009 504281010 504281011 PONCHIONE CARY A TRE SINGER PAMELA MARA GREGOIRE AURORA TRE 1335 RICHMOND ST 114 SAN CARLOS AVE 1855 TACOMA AVE EL CERRITO CA EL CERRITO CA BERKELEY CA 94530 94530 94707 504291006 504291007 504291008 CROWLEY AMBER FENDER TRE BERGER KAREN H BORAME JOAN C 151 COLUSA AVE 149 COLUSA AVE 145 COLUSA AVE EL CERRITO CA EL CERRITO CA EL CERRITO CA 94530 94530 94530 504291009 504291010 504291011 KING JOYCE HIRANO TRE SAVAGE M KIM DOBAN ADAM A 143 SANTA FE AVE 139 SANTA FE AVE PO BOX 7142 EL CERRITO CA EL CERRITO CA BERKELEY CA 94530 94530 94707 504291012 504291013 504291014 GbWERS ROBERT C&NANCY L LOW GARY B &MARGARET L TRE ORLY ELVIRA M TRE 131 SANTA FE AVE 127 SANTA FE AVE 1720 ARCH ST EL CERRITO CA EL CERRITO CA BERKELEY CA 94530 94530 94709 504291015 504291016 504291017 DEDERICK JAN K TRE VILLARROEL COLLEEN LAROSE NANCY 121 SANTA FE AVE 119 SANTA FE AVE 118 SAN CARLOS AVE EL CERRITO CA EL CERRITO CA EL CERRITO CA 94530 94530 94530 504291018 504291019 504291020 COADY DAVIDA TRE HEYER MARYANNE VINCENT LOUIS E&KATHLEEN J 124 SAN CARLOS AVE 128 SAN CARLOS AVE 132 SAN CARLOS AVE EL CERRITO CA EL CERRITO CA EL CERRITO CA 94530 94530 94530 504291021 504291022 504291023 ROSSOUKH FARZIN BOUTWELL ERIC K&CAROL R PARK EDWIN C 134 SAN CARLOS AVE 138 SAN CARLOS AVE 140 SAN CARLOS AVE EL CERRITO CA EL CERRITO CA EL CERRITO CA 94530 94530 94530 504291024 504291025 504291026 CHUANG SUSAN SHEEHAN OLIVE C BRILL HARRY&CAROL • 142 SAN CARLOS AVE 146 SAN CARLOS AVE 150 SAN CARLOS AVE EL CERRITO CA EL CERRITO CA EL CERRITO CA 94530 94530 94530 571300001 571300002 571300003 HARIRl MANSOUR&LIDA F HIBDON THOMAS L TRE MARTIN MARVIN H 8651 THORS BAY RD 343 BERKELEY PARK BLVD 339 BERKELEY PARK BLVD EL CERRITO CA KENSIGNTON CA KENSIGNTON CA 94530 94707 94707 • 571300031 571300032 571311001 PAUL RODNEY K&SARAH FOLEY THOMAS E JR CIRCLE PARTNERSHIP THE 1619 OAK VIEW AVE 1611 OAK VIEW AVE 525 BONNIE DR KENSIGNTON CA KENSIGNTON CA EL CERRITO CA 94707 94707 94530 571311002 571311031 571320005 BEACHAM MARIANNE E FORD ROBERT A& KELLEY B H MORAN LESLIE E&PATRICIA J 411 COLUSA AVE 415 COLUSA AVE 415 BERKELEY PARK BLVD KENSIGNTON CA KENSIGNTON CA KENSIGNTON CA 94707 94707 94706 571320006 571320007 571320008 MOREAU CHARLES L TRE SHIKUMA LEANORE WALSH JOH IKE HYUN&JI WON 409 BERKELEY PARK BLVD 407 BERKELEY PARK BLVD 406 COLUSA AVE KENSIGNTON CA KENSIGNTON CA KENSIGNTON CA 94706 94706 94707 571320009 571320010 EDGAR J CROWLEY JR BONNET TIMOTHY W&TRACEY A 525 BONNIE DR 410 COLUSA AVE EL CERRITO CA KENSIGNTON CA 94530 94707 571331002 571332004 SMONDS INVESMENT COMPANY INCE KAMURAN F&ROTA K TRE PO BOX 6281 3769 CLARA DR ALBANY CA NAPA CA 94706 94558 571332005 571332006 571332007 BULLARD JENNIFER A BROWN MOSES& EVELYN J JONES IRA N&EVA PO BOX 60996 410 BERKELEY PARK BLVD 408 BERKELEY PARK BLVD SL NNYVALE CA KENSIGNTON CA KENSINGTON CA 94088 94706 94706 571332008 571332009 DAVID DANIEL N DAVID NARSAI M TRE 25 ROBLE RD 350 BERKELEY PARK BLVD BERKELEY CA KENSINGTON CA 94705 94707 571332011 571332013 571332014 MORABITO FRANCES TRE CONCEPCION DANIEL C&M TRE MOW MARIA C 2845 WOOLSEY ST 819 PARK WAY 571 DOUGLASS ST BERKELEY CA EL CERRITO CA SAN FRANCISCO CA 94705. 94530 94114 571332015 571332016 571332017 MILLER MARGARET A TRE GIORSETTO PAUL J&E JEANNE TREVINO MICHAEL&LAURIE 415 SANTA FE AVE 417 SANTA FE AVE 421 SANTA FE AVE KENSIGNTON CA KENSIGNTON CA KENSIGNTON CA 94706 94706 94706 571340010 t HART JUDY A TRE COL 01] 571340012 ULRiCHS COLE MORROW 338 COVENTRY RD PO BOX 2251 BECKER GEORGE R&MOANA L TRE KENSIGNTON CA EL CERRITO CA 342 COVENTRY RD 94707 94530 KENSIGNTON CA • 94707 571340013 571340015 BECKER GORDON S NAITO KUNIAKI571340016 344 COVENTRY RD 131 ANZA VISTA AVE UL.RICHS KANUS C KENSIGNTON CA SAN FRANCISCO CA PO BOX 2103 94707 94115 BETHEL ISLAND CA 94511 571340017 571340018 HOLT MARY M TRE DAVID NARSAI M& VENUS 342 BERKELEY PARK BLVD 350 BERKELEY PARI{BLVD KENSIGNTON CA KENSINGTON CA 94770707 94707 571340020 571340021 BAKER DEANNA L JIMENEZ JOSE M571340022 367 COLUSA AVE SILVA CHERRYL E KENSIGNTON CA 152 AUDUBON RD 359 COLUSA AVE WARWICK RI 94707 2588 KENSIGNTON CA 94707 571340023 571340024 571340025 WINDESHEIM JANET L WAIDESHEIM JANET L ONEIL CLARA TRE 1845 CATALINA AVE 1845 CATALINA AVE 349 COLUSA AVE BERKELEY CA BERKELEY CA KENSIGNTON CA 94707 94707 94707 • WILLIAM WHITTEN CITY OF EL CE CITY OF BERKELEY 1074 ORCHARD ROAD CERRITO 10890 SAN PABLO AVENUE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES LAFAYETTE, CA 94549 EL CERRITO, CA 94530 2180 MILIVIA STREET BERKELEY, CA 94704 CITY OF ALBANY JUDY TART JODY ZAITLIN 1000 SAN PABLO AVE . 1675 VISALIA AVE. 297 BERKELEY PARK BLVD. ALBANY, CA 94706 BERKELEY, CA 94707 KENSINGTON, CA 94707 MARILYN STOLLON 12 ELDRIDGE COURT MRS. FARVE KENSINGTON, CA 94707 1601 OCEAN VIEW KENSINGTON, CA 94707 JEAN LANGFORD JANET HITI'LE 8 ELDRIDGE COURT 1612 OAK VIEW AVENUE KENSINGTON, CA 94707 KENSINGTON, CA 94707 • CINDY PODREN 418 BERKELEY PARK BLVD. KENSINGTON, CA 94707 Ed Hammonds Alex Kom Henry&Mary Wada 384 Colusa Catamount Design P.O. Box 6381 Kensington, CA 94707 610 Arlington Ave. Albany, CA 94706 Berkeley, CA 94707 CATHERINE REED RICHARD KARLSSON CHRISTOPHER BRYDON 728 COVENTRY RD. 637 WELLESLEY AVE. 220 STANFORD AVE. KENSINGTON, CA 94707 KENSINGTON, CA 94707 KENSINGTON, CA 94707 PATRICK TAHARA PAMELA BROWN GORDON BECKER 49 WINDSOR AVE. 228 TRINITY AVE. 344 COVENTRY RD. KENSINGTON, CA 94707 KENSINGTON, CA 94707 KENSINGTON, CA 94707 REYES BARR.AZA Hammonds Investment Co. Rodney Paul 248 AMHERST AVENUE P.O. Box 6281 1619 Oakview Avenue KENSINGTON, CA 94707 Albany, CA 94706 Kensington, CA 94707-1221 • Carrie Schulze Joel Turtle John Joseph Clark 412 Colusa Circle 276 Coventry Rd. 125 Santa Fe Ave.El Cerrito, CA 94530 Kensington, CA 94707 Kensington, CA 94707 • Ron Wizelman Thomas Morabito Ellen Mills 1635 Ocean View 1550 Oak View Ave 1698 Oak View Ave. Kensington,CA 94707 Kensington, CA 94707 Kensington, CA 94707 Sanford and Jenny Schaffell Nicholas Wellington James Shinn 1655 Oak View Ave. 1623 Oak View Ave. 20 Highgate Ct/' Kensington, CA 94707 Kensington, CA 94707 Kensington, CA 94707 Lillian Jean Langford Laura Zucker Allison Gigi Dang 8 Eldridge Ct. 247 San Carlos Ave. Jim Blakeley Kensington, CA 94707 El Cerrito, CA 94530 15 Anson Way Kensington, CA 94707 Ben Clow Ida Teshima 21 Eldridge Ct. 1629 Ocean View Ave. Kensington, CA 94707 Kensington, CA 94707 • I