Title
PLN2012-00040; San Leandro Shoreline Development Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH#2013072011). Public hearing to consider a recommendation from the Planning Commission to the City Council for certification of the San Leandro Shoreline Project EIR as further defined below. The EIR addresses a mixed use development on a 75-acre project site (52-acre site land area and 23-acre water area which encompasses the San Leandro Marina and surrounding properties) located on Monarch Bay Drive, between Marina Boulevard and Fairway Drive. The project site consists of 10 separate Alameda County Assessor’s Parcel Numbers, 79A-475-9-4; 79A-590-1-5; 79A-590-1-7; 79A-590-2; 79A-590-3; 79A-590-4; 79A-590-5; 79A-590-6; 80G-900-1-8; and 80G-900-4-1. Cal-Coast Development Company is the project applicant and the City of San Leandro is the property owner.
Staffreport
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
The purpose of this June 18, 2015 public hearing is for the Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on certification of the EIR for the proposed San Leandro Shoreline Development Project. The EIR consists of a separately bound Draft EIR and Final EIR. Both documents were previously distributed to the Planning Commission and are available on the City’s website, at City Hall and at the main library. The Draft EIR identifies the proposed Project and its potential environmental effects, as well as mitigations to reduce those effects to less than significant whenever feasible. The Final EIR consists of comments received during the public review and comment period on the Draft EIR and written responses to those comments. Before the Planning Commission makes a recommendation on the Project (see next agenda item), it considers and makes a recommendation on whether the City Council should certify the EIR as adequate. Certification is not a Project approval or an assessment of the Project merits; certification occurs before the Project is considered on its merits and determines whether the EIR is adequate.
BACKGROUND
Role of the Planning Commission
The Project applications include a General Plan amendment and rezoning, as further described in the staff report for the next agenda item. Under State law and the City’s zoning code, the Planning Commission reviews both applications and makes a recommendation to the City Council for approval, conditional approval, or denial of the proposal as submitted or in modified form.
Where the Planning Commission is the recommending body on land use applications, its CEQA role is to review and consider the EIR prior to making the recommendation (CEQA Guidelines section 15025(d)). The City’s practice is for the Planning Commission’s review and consideration to be in the form of a recommendation to the City Council on certification of the EIR. More specifically, certification of an EIR is a finding that the EIR was completed in compliance with CEQA, was considered prior to taking action on the project, and reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis (CEQA Guidelines section 15090).
DETAILS OF THE PROPOSAL
Project Description
The Project site is 52 acres in land area and is owned by the City of San Leandro, and 23 acres of water area. The Project is the result of a public/private partnership between the City of San Leandro and Cal Coast Companies LLC. The Project includes a variety of components which are described in detail in Chapter 3, Project Description, of the Draft EIR. The conceptual site plan is shown on Figure 3-3 of the Draft EIR. The salient components include a new 150,000 square foot office campus, a new 200-room hotel, a new conference center, 354 new housing units, 3 new restaurants, and a new parking structure. A variety of public amenities would be installed, including a new approximately 2,500-square-foot community library/community meeting space, an aquatic center/dock, bocce ball courts, outdoor recreational areas, picnic areas, a perched beach, pedestrian piers, two miles of public promenade, a natural shoreline element along the interior of the harbor basin, a pedestrian/bicycle bridge, a boardwalk/lookout pier, several small finger piers, and refurbishment of existing public restrooms on site. Although direction from the San Leandro City Council to staff is to maintain the existing San Leandro Marina for as long as financially feasible, for the purpose of the environmental analysis, the Draft EIR assumes that the harbor masters office, fuel pump/dock, and the 462 existing boat slips in the harbor basin would eventually be removed by the City at such time as safe and navigable boating operations cease to exist. With removal of the boat slips, the harbor would only be open to non-motorized watercraft; the Project includes the construction of a small boat launch, a kayak storage building, and an aeration fountain in the harbor basin to aid in water circulation.
Project Objectives
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15124(b), an EIR must identify the objectives sought by the Project. Identifying project objectives also serves as a basis for analyzing alternatives to the proposed Project, as described below under the Alternatives heading. Accordingly, the Project’s objectives are listed below, and also included in Chapter 3 of the Draft EIR.
• Build an economically viable and vibrant mixed-use development which provides needed amenities and services to the residents of the City of San Leandro and creates a regional recreational and commercial destination, including:
o A banquet/conference facility for residents and others to hold large parties such as weddings, graduation parties, quinceaneras, and other events in San Leandro. The banquet/conference center is also needed to support tournaments at the Tony Lema Golf Course;
o A limited-service hotel, providing limited food and beverage service to hotel guests and not the general public;
o Multiple dining options;
o Housing units responsive to market demands to increase City housing stock, for above-moderate income units;
o Class A office space to attract innovative businesses and quality jobs for the citizens of San Leandro; and
o An enhanced Library/community building.
• Ensure the Project uses are synergistic and create a regional destination for dining, lodging, entertainment, and recreation.
• Provide recreation opportunities such as bocce ball courts, a small boat launch and public gathering spaces, a 20-foot-wide public promenade including lookout stations, to increase and enhance the public’s access to the Bay.
• Provide multiple areas for the public to enjoy scenic views and interact with the San Francisco Bay.
• Enhance connections between the San Leandro’s shoreline and the San Francisco Bay Trail.
• Remove current blight, including the former Blue Dolphin site pillars and fencing and the fenced former Boatworks site.
• Ensure the redeveloped portion of San Leandro Shoreline complements existing amenities and provides needed connection between the amenities and current shoreline uses.
• Ensure that development is provided in an environmentally sensitive manner, and promotes the latest trends in energy efficiency.
• Recognize the economic uncertainty of acquiring future funding for needed on-going channel and harbor dredging, the City’s existing debt burden related to past harbor improvements, and the City’s desire to plan for a successful transition from the existing blighted use to an environmentally and financially sustainable alternative that maintains the public’s access to the harbor basin and San Francisco Bay.
Project Phasing
The Project is anticipated to occur over three phases (dependent on market forces), as described below.
Phase 1
This phase would include the bulk of the development, including construction of the hotel and conference center, three restaurants, office development along Monarch Bay Drive including an 800-space parking structure, 159 multi-family rental units, a mixed-use building and up to 61 condo units on the former Boatworks site, and a new library This phase would also include removal of several structures, including wood and concrete docks and piers, including the Blue Dolphin Restaurant platform, El Torito Restaurant building, San Leandro Yacht Club building, most of the public/private restrooms and removal of the harbormaster’s office, fuel pump/dock, and underground storage tank. Phase 1 also includes construction of all infrastructure (streets, sidewalks, lighting, landscaping, pedestrian and bicycle walkway and bridge, etc.) and amenities.
Phase 2
This phase would include construction of 64 2- to 3-story townhomes on Monarch Bay Drive, 70 homes on Fairway Drive built within the redesigned Marina Golf Course, and removal of golf course concession stands. Five of the tees/holes on the nine-hole Marina Golf Course would be reconfigured in order to accommodate the housing; no tees/holes would be removed.
Phase 3
This final phase would include the balance of the 150,000 square feet of office space (unless the market allows it to be absorbed during Phase 2). The parking structure associated with this office space will already have been built during Phase 1.
The existing Marina Inn building and the Horatio’s restaurant building on the site would remain a part of the Project area.
Timeline for Project Entitlements
Numerous entitlements and approvals are necessary prior to Cal Coast’s implementation of the project, including the following:
1) Certification of the San Leandro Shoreline Development Project EIR;
2) General Plan amendment for approximately 12 acres of the project site to Medium Density Residential;
3) Re-zoning of approximately 12 acres of the project site to RM-2000(PD), Residential Multi-Family, Planned Development Overlay District and approximately 40 acres to CC(PD) Commercial Community, Planned Development Overlay District;
4) Site Plan Review, tentative map, and Planned Development guidelines, plans, and other submittals for the San Leandro Shoreline Development project;
5) Development Agreement between the City and Cal Coast which outlines development requirements such as: project phasing and timing of construction; infrastructure requirements and maintenance standards; quality of architecture, tenants, materials and landscaping; lease terms, responsibilities for redevelopment of the boat harbor, public art, and prevailing wages.
The City will consider the above actions in a two-step process. The first step will be consideration of certification of the EIR and approval of the General Plan Amendment and rezoning (items 1-3 above) based on the current conceptual site plan. The second step will be consideration of the development permits and development agreement (items 4-5 above) based on design level plans that would be prepared to implement the EIR mitigations and other regulatory requirements that apply to the Project. These regulatory requirements include City building and grading ordinances, as well as permitting from the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC); Army Corps of Engineers; Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)(San Francisco Region); and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW).
The Draft EIR, Final EIR, and other project documents may be found on the City of San Leandro website at: http://www.sanleandro.org/depts/cd/shoreline/, in the Planning Services Division at City Hall and at the main library at 300 West Estudillo during normal business hours.
Project Location
The 75-acre project site (52-acre site land area and 23-acre water area which encompasses the San Leandro Marina and surrounding properties) is located on Monarch Bay Drive, between Marina Boulevard and Fairway Drive. The project site consists of 10 separate Alameda County Assessor’s Parcel Numbers, 79A-475-9-4; 79A-590-1-5; 79A-590-1-7; 79A-590-2; 79A-590-3; 79A-590-4; 79A-590-5; 79A-590-6; 80G-900-1-8; and 80G-900-4-1. Cal-Coast Development Company is the project applicant and the City of San Leandro is the property owner.
Please refer to Chapter 3 of the Draft EIR document for a complete Project Description.
ANALYSIS
Draft Environmental Impact Report
The Project requires discretionary approvals as detailed above and therefore is subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and its implementing guidelines. According to Section 15121(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, the purpose of an EIR is to:
Inform public agency decision makers and the public generally of the significant environmental effects of a project, identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the project.
In compliance with Section 21080.4 of the California Public Resources Code, the City circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an EIR for the Project to the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) State Clearinghouse and interested agencies and persons on July 3, 2013. However, as a result of Project revisions described in Chapter 1 of the Draft EIR, the City reissued an NOP on December 11, 2013 for a required 30-day review period. The NOP solicited comments from identified responsible and trustee agencies, as well as interested parties regarding the scope of the Draft EIR. A copy of the reissued NOP is included as Appendix A of the Draft EIR, as well as comments received by the City in response to the NOP.
Following the close of the NOP comment period, and pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Draft EIR was prepared by the City of San Leandro Community Development Department. The Draft EIR was released for public review on December 9, 2014. The required 45-day public comment period on the Draft EIR was extended and ended on February 6, 2015. After the close of the public comment period, all comments that were received (either orally at the January 15, 2015 Planning Commission and January 26, 2015 City Council hearings or in writing) have been responded to in a Final EIR document, as further discussed below.
The Draft EIR and Final EIR documents together comprise the EIR for the project. The Planning Commission has had an opportunity to review the Draft EIR, all comments the City received on the Draft EIR, and related responses in the Final EIR prior to consideration of certification of the EIR and prior to taking any action on the proposed Project.
Scope of the EIR
The Draft EIR assesses the potential environmental impacts of the San Leandro Shoreline Development Project based on the Conceptual Site Plan in Figure 3-3.
The Draft EIR examined the full range of potential environmental impacts based on the eighteen resource topic areas in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, including but not limited to, the following environmental topics:
• Aesthetics
• Air Quality
• Biological Resources
• Geology, Soils and Seismicity
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Land Use and Planning
• Noise
• Population and Housing
• Public Services and Recreation
• Transportation and Traffic
• Utilities and Service Systems
The Draft EIR identified a number of impacts as less than significant, as shown in Table 1.1 (revised in the Final EIR). Of particular note is the extended discussion of aesthetics and views, given the waterside location of the project site and the City General Plan designation of a “Significant View” from the Marina towards the Bay (See DEIR Figure 4.1-1). As more fully described in Impact Discussion AES-1 of the Draft EIR, the near-field view (as shown in DEIR Figure 4.1-1) is dominated by views of the boats and large boat covers in the harbor; mid- to far-field views include views to the horizon including Mulford Point, San Francisco Bay, and the distant ridgeline of the Santa Cruz Mountains on clear days. As part of the extended discussion and analysis in the Draft EIR, photo simulations were prepared to provide a general picture of how the proposed Project would affect these views (See DEIR Figures 4.1-5a through 4.1-12b). As discussed in Impact Discussion AES-1 of the DEIR, although these views would be altered by removal of the marina and development of new structures in the Project area, such views would not be adversely affected given that existing views are already partially obstructed by boat masts in the harbor and existing vegetation on Mulford Point. Also, the Project would include multiple opportunities where mid- and far-field views would be available, such as the public promenade, and pedestrian lookouts, which would maximize public views, as well as shoreline access. The Draft EIR also identified significant but mitigatable impacts, as shown in Table 1.1 (revised in Final EIR). Most of these impacts can be reduced to less than significant by implementing proposed mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR (some of which are revised, clarified in Chapter 3 of the Final EIR).
For example, Impact Discussion BIO-1A identified a significant impact on the existing Monarch Butterfly colony. Related Mitigation Measure BIO-1A requires controls on removal and pruning of trees in the southeastern portion of the Project site where the Monarch Butterfly overwintering colony is located. In another example, Impact HYDRO-1A states that project construction could adversely affect water quality. Therefore, Mitigation Measure HYDRO-1A requires construction and demolition controls that will reduce the potential for erosion and sedimentation to reach the water column.
An impact of keen interest to the City and the public is HYDRO-7 which identifies a significant impact because housing and other development could be placed within the 100-year floodplain, within a designated coastal high hazard area, and within areas subject to sea level rise. Mitigation Measure HYDRO-7 requires flood-proofing in accordance with the City’s floodplain management ordinance. It also requires a sea level rise assessment to be implemented through the detailed project-level plans that will be reviewed by the City as part of the site plan review and tentative map process.
Any Project approval by the City Council will be required to adopt findings related to the impacts and mitigation measures and to adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP).
Not all of the Project’s significant impacts can be avoided or reduced to less than significant. As shown in Table 1-1 (revised in the Final EIR), some impacts will remain significant and unavoidable, even after feasible mitigation. Under these circumstances, any Project approval by the City Council will be required to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations in addition to the mitigation findings and MMRP. The significant unavoidable impacts relate to greenhouse gas emissions, noise and traffic/transportation, as summarized below.
§ GHG-1. Implementation of the Project would directly or indirectly generate GHG emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment.
§ GHG-3. Implementation of the Project would directly or indirectly generate GHG emissions that may have a cumulatively considerable and therefore significant impact on the environment.
§ NOISE-2. Implementation of the Project could result in the exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels.
§ NOISE-3. Implementation of the Project would result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project site above levels existing without the Project.
§ TRAF-2A. The proposed Project would cause the I-880 northbound segment north of Davis Street to reduce from LOS E to LOS F in the PM peak hour under Year 2020 conditions.
§ TRAF-2B. The proposed Project would cause the volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio on the northbound segment of Doolittle Drive, which would operate at Level of Service (LOS) F, to increase by 0.06 under Year 2020 conditions and by 0.04 under Year 2035 conditions in the PM peak hour.
§ TRAF-7B. The addition of traffic associated with implementation of the proposed Project would cause I-880 southbound ramps and Marina Boulevard (#14) to reduce to LOS E during both AM and Saturday peak hours, and would further reduce the service levels from LOS E to LOS F in the PM peak hour, under Near-Term Cumulative Conditions. .
§ TRAF-7C. The proposed Project would cause operations at the intersection of San Leandro Boulevard and Marina Boulevard (#18) to reduce from LOS D to LOS E in the AM peak hour, adding to the existing substandard LOS F in the PM peak hour and cause the volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio to increase by 0.07 under Near-Term Cumulative Conditions.
§ TRAF-7I. The Project would cause the operations at the intersection of I‐880 southbound ramps and Marina Boulevard (#14) to reduce from LOS D to LOS E in the AM peak hour; and would reduce the level of service from LOS E to LOS F in the weekday PM and Saturday peak hours and cause the V/C ratios to increase by 0.10 during both periods, which is higher than the 0.05 allowed by the City.
§ TRAF-7J. The Project would add to the Long-Term Cumulative No Project substandard LOS F operations at the intersection of San Leandro Boulevard and Marina Boulevard (#18) and cause the v/c ration to increase by 0.07 in the AM peak hour and 0.10 in the PM peak hour.
Project Alternatives
The Draft EIR analyzes alternatives to the Project that are designed to reduce the significant environmental impacts of the Project and feasibly attain most of the Project objectives. The project objectives were identified above and on pages 3-4 to 3-5 of the Draft EIR. CEQA requires that the Draft EIR analyze a No Project alternative. CEQA further requires that the other alternatives in the Draft EIR be “potentially feasible”. As noted in the Draft EIR, the City considered an offsite alternative and an alternative that removed the hotel but determined that these alternatives were not feasible and should not be addressed further. Based on the direction in CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6, the Draft EIR identified and analyzed the following alternatives to the Project in Chapter 6:
§ No Project Alternative
§ Relocated Hotel Alternative
§ Reduced Density/Intensity Alternative
The Draft EIR analyzed the alternatives for each resource category (except the Relocated Hotel Alternative, which was analyzed as to Aesthetics only), comparing it to the identified Project impacts. The Draft EIR further identified whether the alternatives would avoid the Project’s significant unavoidable impacts related to GHG, noise and traffic. As noted above, the alternatives were chosen for discussion because they were potentially feasible. However, when the City Council considers whether to approve the Project, it will review the alternatives to determine if they are actually, not just potentially, feasible. The following summarizes the potential impacts of the alternatives and assesses the extent to which each meets the Project objectives.
The No Project Alternative assumes no further development or demolition on the Project site. As such, this alternative would avoid all potential impacts and would thus be the environmentally superior alternative. More specifically, this alternative would avoid all of the Project’s significant unavoidable impacts for GHG, noise and traffic because there would be no new development to create GHG emissions, or generate construction noise or new traffic. This alternative would have none of the Project impacts, but because no new development would occur, it would also not fulfill any of the Project objectives.
Where the environmentally superior alternative is a No Project Alternative, CEQA requires the identification of another environmentally superior alternative from among the other alternatives considered. The Reduced Density/Intensity Alternative which would reduce Project components, such as square footage, residential units, and hotel rooms by 25 percent would be the next environmentally superior alternative. As discussed in the Draft EIR, this alternative would reduce most of the Project’s potential impacts. The Draft EIR also notes that this alternative would reduce the Project’s significant unavoidable impacts for GHG, noise and traffic, but not with enough certainty or to a sufficient degree to avoid or reduce them to less than significant. This alternative would meet Project Objectives to redevelop the Marina area with a mix of uses, and would provide public amenities, although to a lesser degree than the Project. However, based on the long history of trying to find a successful project for the area, the City is concerned that the reduced density would not provide enough development to be economically viable, to maintain a high level of activity that would energize the area, or to create the interplay between uses that would mutually support the different components of the development. This alternative would also contribute substantially less above-moderate income housing than the Project toward meeting the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA).
The Relocated Hotel Alternative would keep all the Project components at the same density and intensity, but would move the proposed hotel. Potential locations that could accommodate the hotel include the parking lot along Pescador Point Drive which is southeast of the current proposed location, the parking lot along Mulford Point Drive which is directly adjacent to the northeast of the proposed location, and on the corner of Monarch Point Drive and Monarch Bay Drive. Throughout the past planning efforts for the Marina area, and given its sensitive shoreline and waterside location, views have been a particular issue for the City and the public. Therefore, the Draft EIR identified a view-based alternative for analysis and ultimately concluded that aesthetic and view impacts were less than significant. Overall, because of its similarities to the Project use, density, and conceptual site plan, this alternative would meet the Project objectives. As described in the Draft EIR, this alternative would also have generally the same impacts as the Project and would not reduce or avoid any of the Project’s significant unavoidable environmental impacts related to GHG, noise or traffic.
Final EIR/Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
City staff received comments on the Draft EIR from numerous public agencies including the California Department of Transportation; East Bay Municipality Utility District (EBMUD); San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFRWQCB), California State Lands Commission, Alameda County Transportation Commissions (ACTC), and the Port of Oakland. Additionally, a number of organizations and individuals provided comments on the Draft EIR including the Marina Action Committee; San Leandro Unified School District; Unite Here Local 2850; and the Mulford Gardens Improvement Association. Additional oral comments were provided at the San Leandro Planning Commission meeting held on January 15, 2015 and the City Council hearing on January 26, 2015.
Responses to all of the comments provided by these agencies and individuals are provided in the Final EIR document, dated June 2015. Chapter 2 of the Final EIR includes a revised Table 1.1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures that reflects revisions to the impacts and mitigation measures. These revisions are also shown in Chapter 3 of the Final EIR, including certain revisions and clarifications to the text in the Draft EIR resulting from public comments and/or preparation of written responses. Chapter 5 of the Final EIR includes every comment the City received and written responses to every comment. Given the high community interest in the Project, the comments addressed a wide range of potential resources. As such, this resulted in an unusually comprehensive Final EIR. The City carefully reviewed each comment, and provided discussion and additional analysis where appropriate. Some of the key issues identified in the comments include, but are not limited to, potential impacts to the Monarch butterfly winter roosting habitat, impacts associated with filling and modification of waters of the U.S. and/or State, construction and traffic noise impacts generated by the Project, traffic related impacts on several roadways in the vicinity of the Project, and impacts related to the quality of the Bay and Marina waters.
The City provided good faith, reasoned analysis, and additional research and consultation with subject matter experts in order to resolve, clarify, and address any of the environmentally related concerns raised in the comments. As a result, the comments and the responses provide a considerable amount of information. Therefore, the City carefully reviewed both the comments and the responses against the recirculation standards in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. Based on this review, the City determined that none of the comments, the responses or the changes to the Draft EIR involved a new significant environmental impact, a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact, or a feasible mitigation measure or alternative considerably different from that presented in the Draft EIR. Therefore, there is no significant new information under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 that would trigger recirculation of the Draft EIR.
CONCLUSION
The Draft EIR discussions and the nature and extent of public comments disclose the many sensitivities of the Project site. Its shoreline location ensures a high level of public visibility and interest. In fact, the Shoreline area has been a regular subject of local planning efforts and committees since about 2005, is the subject of existing General Plan policies and is one of ten identified focus areas in the pending General Plan update. The City and public have long sought to preserve the boat slips but the economic and physical challenges of dredging two miles of channel have forced the City to examine alternate uses for the Marina. Similarly, the City approved development projects in the mid- to late 1990s, but none obtained financing.
As required by CEQA, the Draft EIR and public review focus on the physical environmental resources of the Project site, from aesthetics to providing utility infrastructure. As further required by CEQA, the Draft EIR and Final EIR take a hard look at the Project, identifying a wide range of potential impacts. Mitigation measures are identified where feasible; unavoidable impacts are identified where mitigation is uncertain or not feasible. The CEQA review process for the Project has resulted in an extensive and comprehensive informational base for the City and the public to consider when the Project is reviewed on its merits. Through the active CEQA review process, which engaged the public, City staff, City decision makers and other public agencies, the Project EIR adequately complies with CEQA requirements and provides a factual and accurate assessment of the potential environmental effects of the Shoreline Development Project.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
A legal advertisement formally noticing this item was placed in the Daily Review newspaper 10 days in advance of the Planning Commission hearing of June 18, 2015. Notices were mailed to property owners and businesses within 500 feet of the property.
RECOMMENDATION
As more fully described and explained above, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution recommending certification of the San Leandro Shoreline Development Project EIR to the City Council.
PREPARED BY: Cynthia Battenberg, Community Development Director