City of San Pablo
Addendum to the San Pablo 2030
General Plan EIR for the San Pablo
Rumrill Corridor Pla n and General
Plan Update
May 2025
Public Review Draft
Volume 2
Prepared for the City of San Pablo by
CEQA Addendum
Addendum to the San Pablo 2030 General Plan EIR for the San Pablo Rumrill Corridor Plan and General Plan Update May 2025
Public Review Draft
Volume 2
Appendix A
Air Quality and Greenhouse
Gas Emissions
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
66 Franklin Street, Suite 300
Oakland, California 94607
510-834-4455
w w w. r in co n co nsu ltan ts. co m
April 25, 2025
Project No: 20-09554
Andrew Hill, MUP
Principal
Dyett & Bhatia
4001 Howe Street
Oakland, California 94611
Via email: [email protected]
Subject: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment for the Rumrill Corridor Plan, San Pablo, California
Dear Mr. Hill:
Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) is presenting this Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Assessment for the proposed Rumrill Corridor Plan (“plan”) in San Pablo, California. Rincon understands that the study will be used to support the CEQA findings in an addendum to the San Pablo General Plan 2030 EIR.
Project Description
The Rumrill Corridor Plan serves as a blueprint for the revitalization of the Rumrill Corridor Priority Development Area (PDA) in San Pablo, the southern portion of Rumrill Boulevard between Brookside Drive and Costa Avenue. A predominantly young Hispanic neighborhood, the area is home to the Rumrill Sports Park, multifamily apartments, a mobile home park, and several small locally -owned businesses across various sectors such as food and restaurant services, personal businesses, and small-scale manufacturin g amongst other uses. Building on this profile and extensive community feedback, the Plan envisions the area as a highly livable corridor and a destination for “food and fun”, with a projected growth of 408 new housing units and 369 new jobs by 2035. It incorporates new land use designations and other policies that promote mixed density and mixed use infill development along the Corridor. This would result in a wider variety of housing choices for people of all ages and incomes, stimulate economic developme nt and job creation, create new recreational opportunities, improve environmental conditions, and establish the Rumrill Corridor as a new “Gateway to San Pablo”. Additionally, the Plan provides a comprehensive set of anti -displacement and parking strategies to supplement the evolution of the Rumrill Corridor in the future.
Environmental Setting
The plan area is in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB), which is under the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). As the local air quality management agency, the BAAQMD is required to monitor air pollutant levels to ensure tha t state and federal air quality standards are met and, if they are not met, to develop strategies to meet the standards.
The City of San Pablo is located in the eastern portion of the SFBAAB and the proximity to the San Francisco Bay influences the climate in the city and surrounding region. Wind speeds are generally low and air temperatures are cooler in the winter and warmer in the summer.
Dyett & Bhatia
Air Quality and GHG Assessment for the Rumrill Corridor Plan 2 Impact Analysis
Clean Air Plan Consistency
The 2030 General Plan EIR (City of San Pablo 2011) analyzed air quality impacts under Section 3.3, Air Quality. The EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan would be consistent with goals and control measures of the Clean Air Plan, and impacts would be less than significant.
A plan that would not support the Clean Air Plan’s goals would not be considered consistent with the plan. The plan would include placing high density housing along key commercial corridors in proximity to transit and services. By focusing development in established areas next to existing transit and services, development facilitated by the plan would reduce the use of personal vehicles and subsequent mobile emissions than if development were placed further from transit and services.
In addition, development facilitated by the plan would be required to comply with the latest Title 24 regulations, including requirements for residential indoor air quality. The analysis is based on compliance with 2022 Title 24 requirements (individual projects developed under the plan would be required to comply with the most current version of Title 24 at the time of project construction). These requirements currently mandate Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) 13 (or equivalent) filters for heatin g/cooling systems and ventilation systems in residences or implementation of future standards that would be anticipated to be equal to or more stringent than current standards .
Therefore, the plan would improve air quality compared to development farther from transit and services through reducing VMT per capita compared to the existing condition and would protect public health through stringent requirements for MERV -13 filters or equivalent indoor air quality measures, which would be consistent with the pri mary goals of the Clean Air Plan. Therefore, the plan would conform to this determination of consistency for the Clean Air Plan and would not result in new or substantially more significant impacts than those identified in the 2030 General Plan EIR.
Criteria Pollutant Emissions
The 2030 General Plan EIR (City of San Pablo 2011) analyzed criteria pollutant emissions under Section 3.3, Air Quality . The analysis determined that implementation of the proposed San Pablo General Plan could result in an increase in VMT at a rate that would exceed the rate of population increase, which would exceed the BAAQMD plan-level threshold. The EIR discussed how General Plan policies would assist in reducing VMT and thus reducing emissions; however, impacts were assessed as significant and unavoidable.
According to the BAAQMD 2022 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines , the threshold for criteria air pollutants and precursors includes an assessment of the rate of increase of plan VMT versus population growth.
To result in a less than significant impact, the analysis must show that the plan’s projected VMT increase would be less than or equal to its projected population increase. Table 1 summarizes the net increase in population versus VMT based on VMT modeling conducted by Kittleson & Associates.
Population under the plan would increase at a rate of 11 percent, while VMT would increase at a rate of 6 percent. Therefore, under the proposed plan, the VMT per capita is more efficient than the existing condition. This would result in a less than significant impact per the BAAQMD threshold, and the plan would not result in new or substantially more significant impacts than those identified in the 2030 General Plan EIR.
Dyett & Bhatia
Air Quality and GHG Assessment for the Rumrill Corridor Plan 3 Table 1 Increase in Population Compared to VMT Under Plan Scenario Existing (2020) Plan (2031) Net Increase Percent Change Population 36,414 40,582 4,168 11%
Vehicle Miles Traveled 841,253 894,661 53,408 6%
Source: Data provided by Kittleson & Associates 2025
Substantial Pollutant Concentrations
The 2030 General Plan EIR (City of San Pablo 2011) analyzed TACs under Section 3.3, Air Quality.
Citing implementation of land use diagrams to identify health risk overlay zones around existing and planned sources of toxic air contaminants (TACs) and policies to require site -specific project design improvements to reduce public health risks for projects within a health risk overlay zone, impacts were determined to be less than significant. The EIR did not analyze construction TAC emissions.
Future projects facilitated by the plan would also be required to be consistent with the applicable 2017 Clean Air Plan, BAAQMD regulatory requirements and control strategies, and the CARB In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation, which are intended to reduce emissions from construction equipment and activities. Therefore, construction-related TACs exposure impacts would be less than significant , and the plan would not result in new or substantially more significant construction impacts than those identified in the 2030 General Plan EIR.
Future development would be required to comply with San Pablo General Plan 2030 Policy OSC-I-18, which calls for the City to work with BAAQMD to develop and implement a Community Risk Reduction Plan (CRRP) to address the exposure of sensitive populations t o toxic air contaminant emissions in San Pablo. Therefore, operational impacts from TAC emissions would be less than significant, and the plan would not result in new or substantially more significant operational impacts than those identified in the 2030 General Plan EIR.
Odors
Odors were not discussed in the 2030 General Plan EIR. Since the proposed plan would not include major facilities and operations likely to cause substantial odors, d evelopment facilitated by the plan would not generate objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people during operation, and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, the plan would not result in new or substantially more significant impacts than those identified in the 2030 General Plan EIR.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The 2030 General Plan EIR (City of San Pablo 2011) analyzed GHG emissions under Section 3.4, Energy and Greenhouse Gases . The criteria used for GHG emissions included e xceeding the per service population (residents plus employees) threshold of 6.6 MT CO 2e per year or conflicting with existing local, regional, or state efforts to implement AB 32 or SB 375. The EIR analysis determined that the GHG emissions per service population would not exceed the threshold, which would also make the General Plan consistent with GHG regulations. Therefore, impacts were determined to be less than significant.
As discussed above, under the proposed plan, the VMT per capita is more efficient than the existing condition. Therefore, per capita GHG emissions are anticipated to be less than analyzed under the 2030 General Plan EIR. Future development facilitated by the plan would also be located in proximity to transit. Additionally, future development would receive electricity from PG&E, which complies with Dyett & Bhatia
Air Quality and GHG Assessment for the Rumrill Corridor Plan 4 SB 100 that requires renewable portfolio standards of the utility to reach 60 percent by December 31, 2030 and 100 percent of retail sales from eligible renewables and zero -carbon resources by December 31, 2045. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on GHG emissions and with consistency with GHG plans and regulations, and the plan would not result in new or substantially more significant impacts than those identified in the 2030 General Plan EIR.
* * *
This concludes our assessment of air quality and greenhouse gas emissions impacts from the proposed plan. Please do not hesitate to let us know if you wish to discuss this assessment.
Sincerely,
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
Josh Carman, INCE
Director of Technical Services
Appendix B
Supporting Materials for
Cultural Resources
Print Name: Claire Villegas Date:
I, the the undersigned, have been granted access to historical resources information on file at the Northwest Information Center of the Califronia Historical Resources Information System.
I understand that any CHRIS Confidential Information I receive shall not be disclosed to individuals who do not qualify for access to such information, as specified in Section III(A-E) of the CHRIS Information Center Rules of Operation Manual, or in publicly distributed documents without written consent of the Information Center Coordinator.
I agree to submit historical Resource Records and Reports based in part on the CHRIS information released under this Access Agreement to the Information Center within sixy (60) calendar days of completion.
I agree to pay for CHRIS services provided under this Access Agreement within sixty (60) calendar days of receipt of billing.
I understand that failure to comply with this Access Agreement shall be grounds for denial of access to CHRIS Information.
Signature:
Affiliation: Dyett & Bhatia
Address:
Billing Address (if different from above):
City/State/ZIP:
Special Billing Information
Telephone: Email: [email protected]
Purpose of Access:
Reference (project name or number, title of study, and street address if applicable):
City of San Pablo General Plan/Housing Element Update
County: CCO USGS 7.5' Quad:
**This is not an invoice. Sonoma State University will send separate Invoice** File Number: 22-0803
ACCESS AGREEMENT SHORT FORM
Richmond
1 22-0803
January 13, 2023 N W I C F i l e N o .: 22-0803
Claire Villegas
Dyett & Bhatia
1330 Broadway, Ste. 604
Oakland, CA 94612
Re: Record search results for the proposed City of San Pablo (GP/HEU) General Plan/Housing Element Update
Dear Claire Villegas:
Per your request received by our office on the 16
th of November, 2022, a records search
was conducted for the above referenced project by reviewing pertinent Northwest Information Center (NWIC) base maps that reference cultural resources records and reports, historic-period maps, and literature for Contra Costa County. An Area of Potential Effects (APE) map was not provided; in lieu of this, the sphere of influence was provided depicting the City of San Pablo GP/HEU project area will be used to conduct this records search. Please note that use of the term cultural resources includes both archaeological resources and historical buildings and/or structures.
San Pablo is an incorporated city in Contra Costa County, located approximately 15 miles north of Oakland. The Planning Area encompasses approximately 1,900 acres. The General Plan and Housing Element Update project involves a targeted update to several "elements" (chapters) of the General Plan: Land Use, Housing, Safety, and Public Health. Updates are needed to respond to changing conditions in the community and new State laws. An important objective of the project is to stimulate housing construction and new jobs in the city to provide a greater variety of choices for people of all ages, abilities, and income levels. The project also involves a new Corridor Plan for Rumrill Boulevard that will be incorporated into the General Plan to describe the community’s vision for the future of the areas and guide change over time. The project could result in the development of up to 1,623 new housing units, primarily on vacant and underused properties within the City's three designated Priority Development Areas, located along the commercial corridors of San Pablo Avenue, 23rd Street, and Rumrill Boulevard. No zoning map changes are needed to accommodate new development.
Review of this information indicates that there have been eighty-seven (87) cultural resource studies that cover approximately ¼ of the City of San Pablo GP/HEU project area. See attached Report Listing. This City of San Pablo GP/HEU project area contains ten (10) recorded Native American archaeological resources including tool processing sites, habitation sites, hearth or pits, and burials, and two (2) historic-period archaeological resources, including landscaping, fences, and a 1906 Earthquake Refugee camp. In addition, there are two recorded Archaeological Districts, including the Alvarado Park- Grand Canyon Park District, P-07-001320, and the Lower San Pablo Creek Archaeological District, P-07-004534. See attached Resource List.
2 22-0803
The State Office of Historic Preservation Built Environment Resources Directory (OHP BERD), which includes listings of the California Register of Historical Resources, California State Historical Landmarks, California State Points of Historical Interest, and the National Register of Historic Places, lists one hundred four (104) recorded buildings or structures within or adjacent to the proposed City of San Pablo GP/HEU project area. See attached BERD Listing and California Historical Resource Status Codes List. In addition to these inventories, the NWIC base maps show thirty (30) recorded buildings or structures within the proposed City of San Pablo GP/HEU project area, and two recorded Districts, including Circle S Mobile Home Historic District, P-07-002678, and Chattleton Housing District, P-07-002681. See attached Resource List.
At the time of Euroamerican contact, the Native Americans that lived in the area were speakers of the Chochenyo language, part of the Costanoan/Ohlone language family (Levy 1978:485). Using Milliken’s study of various mission records, the proposed project area is located within the lands of the Xucyun or Huchiun, that seem to have extended over a large area along the East Bay shore, from Temescal Creek opposite the Golden Gate, North at least to the lower San Pablo and Wildcat Creek drainages in the present area of [San Pablo] Richmond (Milliken 1995:243, Levy 1978:485).
Based on an evaluation of the environmental setting and features associated with known sites, Native American resources in this part of Contra Costa County have been found in areas marginal to the San Pablo Bayshore and inland on ridges, midslope benches, in valleys, near intermittent and perennial watercourses and near areas populated by oak, buckeye, manzanita, and pine, as well as near a variety of plant and animal resources. The City of San Pablo GP/HEU project area is located in Contra Costa County approximately ¾ mile inland from the margins of the southeastern shore of San Pablo Bay. The project area is situated along the hill to valley interfaces of the bases of El Sobrante and San Pablo Ridges and includes the opening of the San Pablo Creek Valley. The project area is bisected by portions of San Pablo Creek and Wild Cat Creeks. Aerial maps indicate an area with many buildings and structures, ball fields, parking lots, areas with creeks surrounded by riparian environs, and a few open space areas with low grasses and scattered trees. Given the similarity of these environmental factors, there is a high potential for unrecorded Native American resources to be within the proposed City of San Pablo GP/HEU project area.
Review of historical literature and maps indicated historic-period activity within the City of San Pablo GP/HEU project area. Early Contra Costa County maps indicated several roads, buildings and structures, as well as a portion of the California and Nevada Railroad (1895, 1899, and 1915 San Francisco USGS 15-minute topographic quadrangles). With this in mind, there is a high potential for unrecorded historic-period archaeological resources to be within the proposed City of San Pablo GP/HEU project area.
The 1942 San Francisco USGS 15-minute topographic quadrangle depicts numerous buildings or structures within the City of San Pablo GP/HEU project area. If present, these unrecorded buildings or structures meet the Office of Historic Preservation’s minimum age standard that buildings, structures, and objects 45 years or older may be of historical value.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1) There are twelve (12) recorded archaeological resources in the proposed Town of Woodside HEU project area, as well as two recorded Archaeological Districts, Alvarado Park- Grand Canyon Park District, P-07-001320, and the Lower San Pablo Creek Archaeological 3 22-0803
District, P-07-004534. There have been eight-seven (87) cultural resource studies covering approximately 1/4 of the City of San Pablo HEU project area. According to our research there is a high potential of identifying Native American archaeological resources and a high potential of identifying historic-period archaeological resources in unsurveyed portions of the project area.
Given that the proposed City of San Pablo Housing Element Update project area covers such a large area with known sensitivity, and the proposed improvements will guide future projects, it is recommended that these future projects be considered on an individual basis under the Northwest Information Center’s Project Review Program. This Program is organized to aid cities and counties in meeting their CEQA obligations on a project-by-project basis. These reviews result in project specific information and recommendations. Please contact the NWIC Coordinator at 707/588-8455 for additional information.
2) If archaeological resources are encountered during construction, work should be temporarily halted in the vicinity of the discovered materials and workers should avoid altering the materials and their context until a qualified professional archaeologist has evaluated the situation and provided appropriate recommendations. Project personnel should not collect cultural resources. Native American resources include chert or obsidian flakes, projectile points, mortars, and pestles; and dark friable soil containing shell and bone dietary debris, heat-affected rock, or human burials. Historic-period resources include stone or adobe foundations or walls; structures and remains with square nails; and refuse deposits or bottle dumps, often located in old wells or privies.
3) It is recommended that any identified cultural resources be recorded on DPR 523 historic resource recordation forms, available online from the Office of Historic Preservation’s website: https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=28351
4) As per Senate Bill 18 (Chapter 905, Statutes of 2004), local governments are required to consult with California Native American tribes prior to making certain planning decisions and to provide notice to tribes at certain key points in the planning process. These consultation and notice requirements apply to adoption and amendment of general plans (defined in Government Code §65300 et seq.). Each time a local government considers a proposal to adopt or amend the general plan, they are required to contact the appropriate tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission at 916/373-3710.
5) Our research indicates that there are one hundred four (104) recorded buildings and structures included in the OHP BERD within the City of San Pablo General Plan/ Housing Element Update. NWIC Base Maps show thirty (30) recorded buildings and structures, and two recorded Districts; the Circle S Mobile Home Historic District, P-07-002678, and Chattleton Housing District, P-07-002681. The Caltrans Bridge Inventory also includes twelve (12) bridges.
Additionally, the project area has the potential to contain other unrecorded buildings or structures that meet the minimum age requirement.
Therefore, prior to commencement of project specific activities, it is recommended that the above listed resources, and any other ones that have yet to be inventoried, be assessed by a 4 22-0803
professional familiar with the architecture and history of Contra Costa County. Please refer to the list of consultants who meet the Secretary of Interior’s Standards at http://www.chrisinfo.org.
6) Review for possible historic-period buildings or structures has included only those sources listed in the attached bibliography and should not be considered comprehensive.
Due to processing delays and other factors, not all of the historical resource reports and resource records that have been submitted to the Office of Historic Preservation are available via this records search. Additional information may be available through the federal, state, and local agencies that produced or paid for historical resource management work in the search area.
Additionally, Native American tribes have historical resource information not in the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) Inventory, and you should contact the California Native American Heritage Commission for information on local/regional tribal contacts.
The California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) contracts with the California Historical Resources Information System’s (CHRIS) regional Information Centers (ICs) to maintain information in the CHRIS inventory and make it available to local, state, and federal agencies, cultural resource professionals, Native American tribes, researchers, and the public.
Recommendations made by IC coordinators or their staff regarding the interpretation and application of this information are advisory only. Such recommendations do not necessarily represent the evaluation or opinion of the State Historic Preservation Officer in carrying out the OHP’s regulatory authority under federal and state law.
Thank you for using our services. Please contact this office if you have any questions, (707) 588-8455.
Sincerely,
J illian Guldenbrein
R e s e a r c h e r
5 22-0803
LITERATURE REVIEWED
In addition to archaeological maps and site records on file at the Northwest Information Center of the Historical Resources Information System, the following literature was reviewed:
Bennyhoff, James
1977 Ethnogeography of the Plains Miwok. Center for Archaeological Research at Davis Publication Number 5. University of California, Davis.
Bowman, J.N.
1951 Adobe Houses in the San Francisco Bay Region. Geologic Guidebook of the San Francisco Bay Counties, Bulletin 154. California Division of Mines, Ferry Building, San Francisco, CA.
Contra Costa County Planning Department
1976 Preliminary Historic Resources Inventory, Contra Costa County, California. Prepared by Contra Costa County Planning Department, n.p.
Cook, S.F.
1957 The Aboriginal Population of Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. University of California Anthropological Records 16(4):131-156. Berkeley and Los Angeles.
Fickewirth, Alvin A.
1992 California Railroads. Golden West Books, San Marino, CA.
General Land Office
1863, 1872 Survey Plat for Rancho San Pablo, Townships 1 &2 North/Range 4 West.
Heizer, Robert F., editor
1974 Local History Studies, Vol. 18., “The Costanoan Indians.” California History Center, DeAnza College, Cupertino, CA.
Helley, E.J., K.R. Lajoie, W.E. Spangle, and M.L. Blair 1979 Flatland Deposits of the San Francisco Bay Region - Their Geology and Engineering Properties, and Their Importance to Comprehensive Planning. Geological Survey Professional Paper 943. United States Geological Survey and Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Hope, Andrew
2005 Caltrans Statewide Historic Bridge Inventory Update. Caltrans, Division of Environmental Analysis, Sacramento, CA.
Kroeber, A.L.
1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 78, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. (Reprint by Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1976)
6 22-0803
Levy, Richard
1978a Costanoan. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 485-495. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
1978b Eastern Miwok. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 398-413. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Meyer, Jack
2011 Buried Archaeological Site Assessment and Extended Phase 1 Subsurface Explorations for the I-80 Integrated Corridor Mobility Project, Caltrans District 04, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, California. Submitted by Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc. Submitted to Kimley-Horn Associates, Inc.
Milliken, Randall
1995 A Time of Little Choice: The Disintegration of Tribal Culture in the San Francisco Bay Area 1769-1810. Ballena Press Anthropological Papers No. 43, Menlo Park, CA.
Myers, William A. (editor)
1977 Historic Civil Engineering Landmarks of San Francisco and Northern California.
Prepared by The History and Heritage Committee, San Francisco Section, American Society of Civil Engineers. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Francisco, CA.
Nelson, N.C.
1909 Shellmounds of the San Francisco Bay Region. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 7(4):309-356. Berkeley. (Reprint by Kraus Reprint Corporation, New York, 1964)
Nichols, Donald R., and Nancy A. Wright
1971 Preliminary Map of Historic Margins of Marshland, San Francisco Bay, California. U.S.
Geological Survey Open File Map. U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, D.C.
Sanborn Map Company
1913 San Pablo, California.
State of California Department of Parks and Recreation
1976 California Inventory of Historic Resources. State of California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento.
State of California Department of Parks and Recreation and Office of Historic Preservation 1988 Five Views: An Ethnic Sites Survey for California. State of California Department of Parks and Recreation and Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento.
State of California Office of Historic Preservation **
2022 Built Environment Resources Directory. Listing by City (through September 23, 2022).
State of California Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento.
Wagner, Theodore and George Sandow
1894 Map Showing Portions of Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, City and County of San Francisco, California. (Photo Lith Britton and Rey SF) 7 22-0803
Welch, Lawrence E.
1977 Soils Survey of Contra Costa County, California. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation with the University of California Agricultural Experiment Station. n.p.
Williams, James C.
1997 Energy and the Making of Modern California. The University of Akron Press, Akron, OH.
Woodbridge, Sally B.
1988 California Architecture: Historic American Buildings Survey. Chronicle Books, San Francisco.
Works Progress Administration
1984 The WPA Guide to California. Reprint by Pantheon Books, New York. (Originally published as California: A Guide to the Golden State in 1939 by Books, Inc., distributed by Hastings House Publishers, New York.)
**Note that the Office of Historic Preservation’s Historic Properties Directory includes National Register, State Registered Landmarks, California Points of Historical Interest, and the California Register of Historical Resources as well as Certified Local Government surveys that have undergone Section 106 review.
Report List
Report No. Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s)Other IDs
NWIC File # 22-0803 City of San Pablo General Plan/Housing Element Update S-000871 1977 Cultural Resource Survey of the Wildcat and San Pablo Creeks Water Resources Project,
Contra Costa County, California.
Anthropology Laboratory,
Sonoma State College
Peter Banks, David A.
Fredrickson, Lai-Ning
Lee, and Susan
Agency Nbr -
DACWO7-77-E-1320
S-001248 1977 An Archaeological Field Survey, San Pablo Avenue Widening, San Pablo, California
Ecumene AssociatesBenjamin F. Ananian
S-001254 1978 Archaeological Assessment of the Senior
Citizen's Center and Sear's Building Site, San
Pablo, California.
Institute of Cultural
Resources, California State
University, Hayward
E. Breck Parkman
S-001262 1978 An Archaeological Survey of the Proposed
North Richmond Bypass, Contra Costa
County, California.
The Anthropology
Laboratory, Sonoma State
University
Robert A. Stillinger and
David A. Fredrickson
S-001295 1978 Archeological Testing for the Proposed San Pablo Avenue Widening Project, San Pablo,
California
Institute of Cultural
Resources, California State
University, Hayward
Benjamin F. Ananian,
Joseph S. Eisenlauer,
and George R. Miller
S-001535 1979 An Archaeological Investigation of the El Rancho Drive-In Property, San Pablo, Contra
Costa County, California
California Archaeological
Consultants, Inc.
Peter M. Banks
S-001610 1979 An Archaeological Investigation of a Parcel on El Portal Drive, San Pablo, Contra Costa
County, California.
California Archaeological
Consultants, Inc.
Peter M. Banks
S-001611 1979 An Archaeological Investigation of the
Sheffield Redevelopment Project, San Pablo,
Contra Costa County, California.
California Archaeological
Consultants, Inc.
Peter M. Banks
S-001716 1979 An Archaeological Investigation of the Rumrill Bridge Widening Project and the Giant
Highway Bridge Replacement Project, San
Pablo, Contra Costa County, California
California Archaeological
Consultants, Inc.
Peter M. Banks
S-001716a 1979 Historic Properties Survey Report for the Proposed Giant Highway Bridge
Replacement in San Pablo, California; Bridge
Number 28C-326, 04-CC-SAU-A773-SPb
City of San Pablo Public
Works Department
S-001718 1979 An Archaeological Investigation of the Baaba Project, San Pablo, Contra Costa County,
California.
California Archaeological
Consultants, Inc.
Peter M. Banks
S-001719 1979 An Archaeological Investigation of the Central Addition to El Portal Redevelopment Project,
San Pablo, Contra Costa County, California.
California Archaeological
Consultants, Inc.
Peter M. Banks
Report List
Report No. Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s)Other IDs
NWIC File # 22-0803 City of San Pablo General Plan/Housing Element Update S-001768 1979 Final Report of the Testing of Cultural
Resources within the Wildcat and San Pablo
Creeks Flood Control and Water Resources
Project, Contra Costa County, California
California Archaeological
Consultants, Inc.
Peter M. Banks and
Robert I. Orlins
Agency Nbr -
DACWO7-78-6-0016
S-001929 1979 An Archaeological Investigation of a
Prehistoric Cultural Resource at the
Weigmann and Rose Property (Parcel #408-
070-001), Giant Highway, Richmond, Contra
Costa County, California
California Archaeological
Consultants, Inc.
Peter M. Banks
S-002373 1980 Archaeological Impact Evaluation for the
Tank Farm Hill General Plan Amendment for
the Tank Farm Hill General Plan Amendment
E.I.R., Richmond, Contra Costa County,
California
David Chavez & AssociatesDavid Chavez
S-002434 1980 Archaeological monitoring of the excavation of a sewer line located near the prehistoric
site CA-CCO-267 at the Weigmann and Rose
property, Richmond (letter report)
California Archaeological
Consultants, Inc.
Peter M. Banks
S-002832 1981 Augering along a Proposed Fence Line, at
CA-CCO-267, on the Weigmann and Rose
Property, Richmond, Contra Costa County,
California
California Archaeological
Consultants, Inc.
Peter M. Banks
S-004950 1982 Archaeological Survey Report for Proposed High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes from Bay
Bridge to Carquinez Bridge, 04-ALA/CC-80
2.0/8.0, 0.0/14.1, EA 04209-400211
California Department of
Transportation, District 4
Margaret BussCaltrans - EA 04135-
400211;
Caltrans - EA 04209-
400211;
Caltrans - EA 04209-
400211;
Caltrans - EA 04225-
180241;
Voided - S-5750
S-004950a 1982 First Addendum Archaeological Survey
Report for Proposed High Occupancy Vehicle
Lanes from the Bay Bridge to Carquinez
Bridge in Alameda and Contra Costa
Counties, 04-Ala/CC 80 2.0/8.0; 0.0/14.1,
04209-400211
California Department of
Transportation, District 4
Mara Melandry
S-004950b 1991 Addendum Historic Property Survey Report for Operational Improvements to Route I-80
in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties (ALA-
80, P.M. 1.3/8.0; CC-80 0, P.M. 0/10.6)
04135-400211
California Department of
Transportation, District 4
Report List
Report No. Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s)Other IDs
NWIC File # 22-0803 City of San Pablo General Plan/Housing Element Update S-004950c 1991 Second Addendum Archaeological Survey
Report: Cutting Boulevard (04-ALA/CC-80
20.8-.9; 0.0/14.1 04209-400211)
California Department of
Transportation, District 4
Glenn Gmoser
S-004950d 1991 Historic Architecture Survey Report for the Proposed Operational Improvements to
Interstate 80 at the Cutting Boulevard
Interchange, 04-CC-80 P.M. 1.8/2.5, Within
the City Limits of Richmond and El Cerrito,
Contra Costa County, 04225-180241
California Department of
Transportation, District 4
Elizabeth Krase
S-004950e 1991 Third Addendum Archaeological Survey
Report: Richmond Parkway/Atlas Road 04-
CCo-80, PM 6.2/7.4, EA 04135-400211
(Segment of Ala/CC 80 Route 2.0/8.0; PM
0.0/14.1, EA 04209-400211
California Department of
Transportation, District 4
Glenn Gmoser
S-004950f 1991 Field Evaluation of Historic Period Remains in Contra Costa County (letter report)
California Department of
Transportation, District 4
Judy D. Tordoff
S-005661 1982 An Archaeological Evaluation of Subdivision 6190, City of San Pablo (letter report)
Holman & AssociatesRandy S. WibergVoided - S-5662
S-005661a 1982 Further Archaeological Auger Boring Inside the Area of Subdivision 6190 (letter report)
Holman & AssociatesMiley Paul Holman
S-006377 1984 A Cultural Resource Investigation and
Historic Property Survey Report for the Marin
Bridge Replacement Project, San Pablo,
Contra Costa County, California.
California Archaeological
Consultants, Inc.
Peter M. Banks and Gary
F. Wirth
S-006614 1984 Subsurface Archaeological Investigations at Subdivision 6367, Road 20, San Pablo,
Contra Costa County, California
California Archaeological
Consultants, Inc.
Peter Banks
S-007286 1985 Cultural Resource Evaluation of the El Portal Shopping Center/Road 20 Improvement
Project in the City of San Pablo, County of
Contra Costa.
Archaeological Resource
Management
Robert Cartier
S-007350 1985 Marin Bridge Replacement Project/PO
811850 (letter report)
Holman & AssociatesMatthew R. Clark
S-008037 1986 Additional Archaeological Testing in the
Vicinity of the Marin Avenue Bridge
Replacement Project for the City of San
Pablo, Contra Costa County, California
Holman & AssociatesMatthew R. Clark
Report List
Report No. Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s)Other IDs
NWIC File # 22-0803 City of San Pablo General Plan/Housing Element Update S-008037a 1986 More Additional Archaeological Testing in the Vicinity of the Marin Avenue Bridge
Replacement Project for the City of San
Pablo, Contra Costa County, California
Holman & AssociatesMatthew R. Clark
S-008224 1983 A Report of Findings of an Archaeological Field Reconnaissance of the EBRPD Lands
Inside of Wildcat Canyon, Tilden and
Alvarado Parks, Contra Costa County,
California
Holman & AssociatesMiley Paul Holman,
Randy Wiberg, and
Matthew Clark
S-010229 1988 The Archaeological Monitoring of Trench
Excavations in the Vicinity of CCO-374, at
17th Street, San Pablo, Contra Costa County,
California
California Archaeological
Consultants, Inc.
Alice F. Wood
S-011056 1989 An Archaeological Investigation of the E.A.H.
Church Lane Senior Housing, 1924-1928
Church Lane, San Pablo, Ca.
Rene Peron
S-014347 1992 An Archaeological Study of the Port
Development and Construction/Lao Family
Community Development Property (AP# 409-
030-020) Located along Rumrill Blvd., in San
Pablo, Contra Costa County, California
Anthropological Studies
Center, Sonoma State
University
Thomas MartinSubmitter - SSU
50001-62/92
S-015029 1993 Report of Archaeological Auger Testing for the Wildcat Creek Stream Restoration
Project, Alvarado Park, San Pablo, California
Holman & AssociatesRandy S. Wiberg
S-015172 1993 Historical/Architectural Report for Richmond Parkway Project
LSA Associates, Inc.Susan Lehmann and
Beth Padon
S-018038 1994 Mechanical Subsurface Testing for Cultural Resources at the Proposed Church Lane
Apartment Project Area, San Pablo, Contra
Costa County, California (letter report)
Holman & AssociatesMiley Paul Holman
S-019741 1997 An Archaeological Survey Report for the
Bridge Widening on Rumrill Boulevard, San
Pablo, Contra Costa County, California
Anthropological Studies
Center, Sonoma State
University
Seana L. S. GauseSubmitter - 50001-
47/97
S-020683 1997 Report on Archaeological Monitoring at
Alvarado Area, Wildcat Canyon Regional
Park, Richmond, California, 1997
Holman & AssociatesLawrence G. Desmond
Report List
Report No. Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s)Other IDs
NWIC File # 22-0803 City of San Pablo General Plan/Housing Element Update S-021174 1997 Cultural Resources Review-Marin Avenue
Trail Bridge Project, Wildcat Creek Regional
Park, City of San Pablo, Contra Costa
County, California (letter report)
Basin Research Associates,
Inc.
Colin I. Busby
S-021587 1998 Archaeological Monitoring Closure Report - Marin Avenue Trail Project, Wildcat Creek
Regional Park, City of San Pablo, Contra
Costa County, California
Basin Research Associates,
Inc.
Colin I. Busby
S-021588 1998 Archaeological Monitoring Closure Report - Marin Avenue Bridge Pipeline Replacement
Project, City of San Pablo, Contra Costa
County, California (letter report)
Basin Research Associates,
Inc.
Colin I. Busby
S-022295 1999 Historic Properties Survey Report for the Lytton Band of Pomo Indians (Negative),
Conveyance of Fee Land to Trust Status and
Proposed Gaming Facility Acquisition,
Sonoma and Contra Costa Counties,
California
Davis-King & AssociatesShelly Davis-King
S-023397 2000 Cultural Resources Assessment, Parkway
Commerce Center (APN # 408-06-16),
Collins Avenue in the Vicinity of Stanton
Avenue between the Santa Fe Railroad and
Union Pacific Railroad Tracks, City of
Richmond, Contra Costa County (letter report)
Basin Research Associates,
Inc.
Colin I. Busby
S-024266 2001 Survey for Sprint Spectrum's Personal
Communication Services (PCS) Wireless "Pt.
Pinole" Site (Ref #SF54XC006E): Positive
Results (letter report)
Archaeological Resources
Technology
Carolyn Losee
S-024455 2001 Site Recording and Analysis for Sprint PCS "Pt. Pinole" Site (Ref #SF54XC006E) (letter
report)
Archaeological Resources
Technology
Carolyn Losee
S-024464 2001 Riverside Elementary School Classroom
Building Relocation Project, West Contra
Costa Unified School District, FEMA-1155-
DR-CA, DSR #06602 (letter report)
Federal Emergency
Management Agency
Sandro AmaglioOHP PRN -
FEMA010706C
S-024464a 2001 FEMA010706C; FEMA-1155-DR-CA DSR
06602
Office of Historic
Preservation
Knox Mellon
Report List
Report No. Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s)Other IDs
NWIC File # 22-0803 City of San Pablo General Plan/Housing Element Update S-024464b 2001 Monitoring Report, Reverside Elementary
School Classroom Building Relocation
Project, West Contra Costa Unified School
District, FEMA-1155-DR-CA, DSR #06602
(letter report)
URS CoprorationRachael Egherman
S-027940 2004 Archaeological Survey and Record Search for 2832 Giant Road, San Pablo, Contra Costa
County, California (letter report)
Pacific Legacy, Inc.Kevin M. Bartoy
S-028222 2004 Extended Survey and Historic Architectural Evaluation for the EBALDC Giant Road
Project, San Pablo, Contra Costa County
Pacific Legacy, Inc.Kevin M. Bartoy, Ellie
Reese, Katy Killackey,
John Holson, and Trish
Fernandez
S-029043 2004 Cultural Resources Analysis for Cingular
Wireless Site BA-752-06 "San Pablo/I-580"
Richmond, Contra Costa County, California
(letter report)
Archaeological Resources
Technology
Carolyn Losee
S-029368 Nextel Communications Wireless
Telecommunications Service Facility - Contra
Costa County (letter report)
Earth Touch, Inc.Lorna Billat
S-029696 2004 A Cultural and Paleontological Resources
Study for the Circle S Housing Development
Project, San Pablo, Contra Costa County,
California.
LSA Associates, Inc.John Kelley and
Benjamin Matzen
S-031068 2005 Collocation ("CO") Submission Packet, FCC Form 621, El Portal, CA-4056B
EarthTouch, IncScott Billat
S-033237 2006 Cultural Resources Study of the Brentz Lane Park Project, San Pablo, Contra Costa
County, California (letter report)
Holman & AssociatesMiley Paul Holman
S-033548 1995 Historic Property Survey Report and Finding of No Adverse Effect, Rehabilitation of
Historic Resources in Alvarado Park, Wildcat
Canyon Regional Park, Richmond, California
Urban Conservation &
Urban Design
Robert Bruce Anderson
S-033596 2007 Cultural Resource Inventory and Evaluation of United States Army Reserve 63D Regional
Readiness Command Facilities; Contract No.
W912C8-05-P-0052
PAR Environmental
Services, Inc.
Mary L. Maniery and
Cindy L. Baker
OHP PRN -
USA070613A;
Submitter - Contract
No. W912C8-05-P-
0052
Report List
Report No. Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s)Other IDs
NWIC File # 22-0803 City of San Pablo General Plan/Housing Element Update S-033596a 2007 Cultural Resources Inventory and Evaluation of the United States Army Reserve Heroic
War Dead USAR Center/Area Maintenance
Support Activity 85 (G), Oakland, California;
P-01-[010831], 63D Regional Readiness
Command Facility CA036, Contract No.
W912C8-05-P
U.S. Army Reserve; PAR
Environmental Services, Inc.
S-033596b 2007 Cultural Resources Inventory and Evaluation of the United States Army Reserve Oakland
USAR Center #2, Oakland, California; P-01-
01830, 63D Regional Readiness Command
Facility CA-125, Contract No. W912C8-05-P-
0052
U.S. Army Reserve; PAR
Environmental Services, Inc.
S-033596c 2007 Cultural Resources Inventory and Evaluation of the United States Army Reserve PFC
Bacciglieri Armed Forces Reserve Center,
Concord, California; P-07-002752, 63 D
Regional Readiness Command Facility
CA007, Contract No. W912C8-P-0052
U.S. Army Reserve; PAR
Environmental Services, Inc.
S-033596d 2007 Cultural Resources Inventory and Evaluation of the United States Army Reserve Col.
Hunter Hall USAR Center, San Pablo,
California; P-07-002753, 63D Regional
Readiness Command Facility CA 070,
Contract No. W912C8-05-P-0052
U.S. Army Reserve; PAR
Environmental Services, Inc.
S-033596e 2007 Cultural Resources Inventory and Evaluation of the United States Army Reserve Fort Ord
USAR Center, Marina, California; 63D
Regional Readiness Command Facility
CA012, Contract No. W912C8-05-P-0052
U.S. Army Reserve; PAR
Environmental Services, Inc.
S-033596f 2007 Cultural Resources Inventory and Evaluation of the United States Army Reserve Moss
Landing Local Training Area, Moss Landing,
California; 63D Regional Readiness
Command Facility CA189, Contract No.
W912C8-05-P-0052
U.S. Army Reserve; PAR
Environmental Services, Inc.
S-033596g 2007 Cultural Resources Inventory and Evaluation of the United States Army Reserve Jones
Hall USAR Center, Mountain View, California;
P-43-001836, 63D Regional Readiness
Command Facility CA031, Contract No.
W912C8-05-P-0052
U.S. Army Reserve; PAR
Environmental Services, Inc.
Report List
Report No. Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s)Other IDs
NWIC File # 22-0803 City of San Pablo General Plan/Housing Element Update S-033596h 2007 Cultural Resources Inventory and Evaluation of the United States Army Reserve Richey
Hall USAR Center, San Jose, California; P-43-
000728, 63D Regional Readiness Command
Facility CA069, Contract No. W912C8-05-P-
0052
U.S. Army Reserve; PAR
Environmental Services, Inc.
S-033596i 2007 Cultural Resources Inventory and Evaluation of the United States Army Reserve Moffett
USAR Center, Mountain View, California; P-
43-001837, 63D Regional Readiness
Command Facility CA120, Contract No.
W912C8-05-P-0052
U.S. Army Reserve; PAR
Environmental Services, Inc.
S-033596j 2007 Cultural Resources Inventory and Evaluation of the United States Army Reserve PFC
Young USAR Center, Vallejo, California; P-
[48-000752], 63D Regional Readiness
Command Facility CA-090, Contract No.
W912C8-05-P-0052
U.S. Army Reserve; PAR
Environmental Services, Inc.
S-033596k 2007 USA070613A; Inventory and Evaluation of
Historic Resources at 63D Regional
Readiness Command, US Army Reserve
Center in California
California Office of Historic
Preservation; U.S. Army
Milford Wayne
Donaldson and James O.
Anderson
S-034157 2007 Cultural Resources Study of the Wanlass
Park Project, San Pablo, Contra Costa
County, California (letter report)
Holman & AssociatesMiley Paul Holman
S-035001 2008 Results of Mechanical Subsurface
Presence/Absence Testing for Cultural
Resources at the Wanlass Park Project, San
Pablo, Contra Costa County, California (letter
report)
Holman & AssociatesMiley Paul Holman
S-035030 2008 Archaeological Survey Report for Davis Park, City of San Pablo, Contra Costa County,
California (letter report)
Condor Country ConsultingSean Dexter
S-035664 2008 A Cultural and Paleontological Resources
Study for the Contra Costa College Facilities
Master Plan Project, San Pablo, Contra
Costa County, California
LSA Associates, Inc.E. Timothy Jones and
Michael Hibma
Submitter - Project
#CTD0802
Report List
Report No. Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s)Other IDs
NWIC File # 22-0803 City of San Pablo General Plan/Housing Element Update S-036936 2009 Historic Property Survey Report, proposed construction of approximately 1.25 miles of
connector railway between the existing
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway
(BNSF) and Union Pacific Railway (UPRR)
lines in the City of Richmond, Contra Costa
County, California
CRM TECHBai "Tom" Tang
S-036936a 2009 Archaeological Survey Report, Rheem BNSF and UPRR Connection Track Project, BNSF
MP 1185.9 to UPRR MP 14.2, City of
Richmond, Contra Costa County, California,
Caltrans District 10
CRM TECHBai "Tom" Tang, Michael
Hogan, and Terri
Jacquemain
S-038197 2011 Archaeological Presence/Absence
Subsurface Investigation for the West County
Health Center Project, San Pablo, Contra
Costa County, California
LSA Associates, Inc.Heather BlindOther - LSA Project
#CCC1102, Task 1
S-038230 2011 Historic Resources Evaluation, 1901 Church Lane, San Pablo, California
Interactive Resources, Inc.Kimberly ButtOHP PRN -
DOE110103A
S-038230a 2011 DOE110103A: Section 106 for Energy
Upgrades, 1901 Church Lane, San Pablo, CA
Office of Historic
Preservation; Department
of Conservation &
Development
Susan K. Stratton and
Robert T. Calkins
S-038237 2011 Cultural Resources Study for the Via Verde Sinkhole Repair Project, Richmond, Contra
Costa County, California
LSA Associates, Inc.Heather BlindOther - LSA Project
No. NCE1001
S-038251 2011 Buried Archaeological Site Assessment and Extended Phase I Subsurface Explorations
for the I-80 Integrated Corridor Mobility
Project, Caltrans District 04, Alameda and
Contra Costa Counties, California, 04-ALA-
CC-80, P.M. ALA 1.99/P.M. ALA 8.04, P.M.
CC 0.0/P.M. CC 13.49, EA 3A7761 / EA
3A7771
Far Western
Anthropological Research
Group, Inc.
Jack MeyerCaltrans - EA
3A7761;
Caltrans - EA 3A7771
S-040596 2012 Historic Property Survey Report, proposed construction of an approximately 1.25-mile at-
grade connection track between the
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway's
(BNSF) Stockton Subdivision and the Union
Pacific Railroad's (UPRR) Martinez
Subdivision, BNSF MP 1185.9 to UPRR MP
14.2, Contra Costa County, California
CRM TECHBai "Tom" Tang
Report List
Report No. Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s)Other IDs
NWIC File # 22-0803 City of San Pablo General Plan/Housing Element Update S-040596a 2012 Archaeological Survey Report, Richmond Rail Connector Project, BNSF MP 1185.9 to
UPRR MP 14.2, City of Richmond and North
Richmond Area, Contra Costa County,
California, Caltrans District 4
CRM TECHMichael Hogan
Michael Hogan
S-040631 2013 West of Hills Northern Pipelines Project, East Bay Municipal Utility District, Contra Costa
and Alameda Counties, Cultural Resources
Survey Report
Environmental Science
Associates
Heidi Koenig
S-040631a 2019 Supplement to the Cultural Resources Study for the East Bay Municipal Utility District,
Wildcat Pipeline Improvement Project, El
Cerrito
Environmental Science
Associates
Heidi Koenig
S-041082 2013 Cultural Resources Inventory Report for the Hazardous Fire Risk Reduction
Environmental Impact Statement, East Bay
Hills, California
CH2M HILLGloriella Cardenas, Clint
Helton, Megan Venno,
and Natalie Lawson
Agency Nbr -
Contract No.:
HSFEHQ-09-D-1128;
OHP PRN -
FEMA110207A
S-041082a 2011 FEMA110207A; Four Hazardous Fire Risk
Reduction Projects, East Bay Hills, PDM-PJ-
09-CA-2005-011, PDM-PJ-09-CA-2006-004,
PDM-PJ-09-CA-2005-003, and FEMA-HMGP-
1731-16-34
California Office of Historic
Preservation
Milford Wayne
Donaldson and Carol
Roland-Nawi
S-043442 2013 Rumrill Boulevard Bridge Replacement
Project Final Report, Section 1:
Archaeological Testing and Evaluation,
Monitoring of Construction and Data
Recovery, Completion of National Historic
Preservation Act Section 106 Compliance
Holman and Associates
Archaeological Consultants
Matthew R. ClarkOHP PRN -
FHWA071212C
S-043442a 2013 Section II: Rumrill Historic and Recent Artifacts
Holman and AssociatesSunshine Psota
Report List
Report No. Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s)Other IDs
NWIC File # 22-0803 City of San Pablo General Plan/Housing Element Update S-043527 2008 Archaeological Survey Report Interstate 80 / San Pablo Dam Road Interchange Project,
Contra Costa County, California, 4-CC-80 PM
3.8/5.3 EA 0A0800
URS Group Inc.Dean MartoranaCaltrans - EA
0A0800;
Caltrans - EA
0A0811;
Other - EFIS
0413000365
S-043527a 2008 Historical Resources Evaluation Report
Interstate 80/San Pablo Dam Road
Interchange Project Contra Costa County,
California EA 0A0800 4-CC-80 PM 3.8/5.3
JRP Historical Consulting,
LLC
Stephen Wee
S-043527b 2014 Supplemental Historic Property Survey
Report Interstate 80/ San Pablo Dam Road
Interchange Project Contra Costa County,
California EA 0A0811; EFIS 0413000365 4-
CC-80, PM 3.8/5.3
URS Group Inc.Kathleen Kubal
S-043533 2013 West County Wastewater District Capital
Improvement Plan, First SRF Application
Projects, Contra Costa County, Cultural
Resources Survey Report
Environmental Science
Associates
Heidi KoenigSubmitter - ESA
Project # D121021;
Voided - S-45726
S-043533a 2014 West County Wastewater District Water
Pollution Control Plant, Richmond, Contra
Costa County, Cultural Resources Survey
Report
Environmental Science
Associates
Heidi Koenig
S-045358 2014 Collocation Submission Packet, Brookside / CCL00009, 2000 Vale Road, San Pablo,
Contra Costa County
EnviroWestLorna Billat and Dana
Supernowicz
S-045358a 2014 Architectural Evaluation Study of the
Brookside Project AT&T Mobility Site No.
CCL00009, 2000 Vale Road, San Pablo,
Contra Costa County, California 94806
Historic Resource
Associates
Dana E. Supernowicz
S-046251 2015 Cultural Resources Inventory, Extended
Phase I Testing (XPI) and Evaluation Report
for the Laurel Terrace Development Project,
San Pablo, Contra Costa County, California
(FINAL)
Stantec Consulting
Services, Inc.
Michelle C. CrossOHP PRN - HUD
2015_0316_007
S-046251a 2015 Amendment 1 to the Cultural Resources
Inventory, Extended Phase I Testing (XPI)
and Evaluation Report for the
Laurel Terrace Development Project, San
Pablo, Contra Costa County, California
(FINAL)
Stantec Consulting
Services, Inc.
Michelle C. Cross
Report List
Report No. Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s)Other IDs
NWIC File # 22-0803 City of San Pablo General Plan/Housing Element Update S-046251b 2015 HUD 2015_0316_007: Multifamily
Development Project Located at Southeast
Corner San Pablo Avenue/Church Lane, San
Pablo
Office of Historic
Preservation; Department
of Conservation and
Development
Carol Roland-Nawi and
Kristin Sherk
S-047514 2014 Cultural Resources Constraints Report, Gas Main Standard & Mason, San Pablo, Contra
Costa County, PM Number 30968147
Garcia and AssociatesDarryl DangSubmitter - 30968147
S-047514a 2016 Archaeological Monitoring Summary Report for 30968147 Gas Main Standard & Mason,
San Pablo, Contra Costa County (letter report)
Garcia and AssociatesBrandon Patterson
S-049138 2016 Historic Property Survey Report: San Pablo Complete Streets Project, San Pablo and
Richmond, Contra Costa County, California,
Caltrans District 4, Federal ID #
CML5303(016)
LSA Associates, Inc.Neal KaptainAgency Nbr - FA #
CML5303(016)
S-049138a 2016 Archaeological Survey Report: San Pablo
Complete Streets Project, San Pablo and
Richmond, Contra Costa County, California,
Caltrans District 4, Federal ID #
CML5303(016)
LSA Associates, Inc.Neal Kaptain
S-049682 Colonel Hunter Hall, United States Army
Reserve Center, Facility ID No. CA070
OHP PRN -
USA_2017_0206_002
S-049682a 2017 USA_2017_0206_002, Real Property
Exchange of Hunter Hall Army Reserve
Center, 2600 Castro Road, San Pablo,
California
Office of Historic
Preservation; Department
of the Army
Julianne Polanco, Laura
M. Caballero, and Susan
K. Stratton
S-050069 2018 Cultural Resources Assessment Report,
Wildcat Creek Restoration and Greenway
Trail, San Pablo, California, Project Number
17-365, Report Number 17-394
William Self Associates, IncChristina Alonso, Stacy
Kozakavich, and Nazih
Fino
Submitter - Project
Number 17-365;
Submitter - Report
Number 17-394
S-051181 Archaeological Survey Report for Sound
Barrier Wall on 4-CC-80-4.0/4.1
CaltransDaniel L. Young
S-051831 1991 Report of Findings of Mechanical Auguring of Two Parking Lots at Alvarado Park, Contra
Costa County, California (letter report)
Holman & AssociatesMiley Paul Holman
S-051913 2018 Randy Lane Cultural Resources Monitoring
(letter report)
Far Western
Anthropological Research
Group, Inc.
Justin Wisely
Report List
Report No. Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s)Other IDs
NWIC File # 22-0803 City of San Pablo General Plan/Housing Element Update S-051998 2016 Cultural Resources Records Search Results for T-Mobile West, LLC Candidate BA11752A
(BA752 Security Storage) 3415 San Pablo
Dam Road, San Pablo, Contra Costa County,
California (letter report)
Environmental Assessment
Specialists, Inc.
Carrie D. Wills and
Kathleen Crawford
S-052106 1976 Archaeological Survey Report on Excess
Parcel No. 008526-01-01 on 4-CC-80-3.9+/-
Lt.
California Department of
Transportation
Daniel L. Young
S-054309 2016 Cultural Resources Review for the City of Richmond Wastewater Treatment Plant and
Sewer Collection System Improvements,
Richmond, Contra Costa County, California
(LSA Project #CPZ1501)
LSALora Holland and Michael
Hibma
Submitter - LSA
Project #CPZ1501
Primary No. Trinomial
Resource List
Other IDs Type Age Attribute codes Recorded by
NWIC File 22-0803 City of San Pablo
P-07-000074 CA-CCO-000132 Resource Name - [none] Site Prehistoric AP02; AP15 1940 (Gert Daniels, [none]); 1977 (Peter Banks, [none])
P-07-000128 CA-CCO-000247 Resource Name - Nelson Map
#433;
Other - Loud's #433
Site Prehistoric AP15 1910 (A. Pilling, Nelson Map,
[none]);
1940 (Gert Daniels, [none])
P-07-000146 CA-CCO-000267 Other - Barker's San Pablo;
Other - Utah Construction Co.;
Resource Name - Nelson No.
267;
Other - Nelson's Survey 267
Site Prehistoric AP02; AP09; AP15 1907 (N. C. Nelson, University of California);
1949 (A.R. Pilling, University of
California);
1952 (Pilling, University of
California);
1978 (Peter Banks)
P-07-000150 CA-CCO-000271 Other - Batha Site;
Resource Name - Nelson No.
271;
OHP PRN - COE840214A
Site,
Element of
district
Prehistoric AP09; AP15 1907 (N. C. Nelson, University of California);
1977 (Peter Banks);
1978 (Peter Banks);
1997 (Seana Gause,
Anthropological Studies Center,
Sonoma State University);
2017 (Liz Spurlock, FWARG)
P-07-000151 CA-CCO-000272 Resource Name - Nelson No. 272 Site Protohistoric AP09; AP11; AP15 1907 (N.C. Nelson, [none]); 1979 (R.M., [none])
P-07-000323 CA-CCO-000553/H Resource Name - Alvarado Park, Wildcat Regional Park;
Voided - CA-CCO-125;
Voided - CA-CCO-274;
Voided - CA-CCO-349;
Voided - CA-CCO-353;
Voided - CA-CCO-373;
Other - Nelson's 274;
Other - Petroglyph site;
Other - ASC-59-11-01
Site,
Element of
district
Prehistoric,
Historic
AH03; AH11; AH16;
AP09; AP11; AP15;
HP29
(D.W.L., [none]);
1907 (N.C. Nelson, [none]);
1940 (Gert Daniels, [none]);
1951 (DWL, [none]);
1971 (George R. Coles, Jr., [none]);
1974 (Teresa Miller, Reed Haslam,
[none]);
1975 (Teresa Miller, Reed Haslam,
[none]);
1978 (Wm. Lindenau, [none]);
1978 (Peter Banks, [none]);
1978 (Peter Banks, [none]);
1984 (Peter Banks, [none]);
1988 (A. Praetzellis, ASC, SSU);
2011 (Annamarie Leon Guerrero,
ASC, SSU);
2012 ([none], CH2M Hill);
2017 (Annamarie Leon Guerrero,
AECOM)
Primary No. Trinomial
Resource List
Other IDs Type Age Attribute codes Recorded by
NWIC File 22-0803 City of San Pablo
P-07-000466 CA-CCO-000357 Resource Name - Field No. 132-B Site Prehistoric AP02; AP15 1977 (P. Banks, [none]) P-07-000467 CA-CCO-000358H Resource Name - Field No. H-3 Building Historic AH15 1977 (P. Banks, [none]) P-07-000471 CA-CCO-000374 Resource Name - [none] Site Prehistoric AP09; AP15 1978 (P. Banks, [none]) P-07-000672 CA-CCO-000246 Resource Name - Nelson #432,
Loud #432
Site Prehistoric AP15 1910 (Pilling/Nelson, [none])
P-07-000866 Resource Name - American
Standard;
Other - Giant Trade Center
Building Historic HP08 2001 ([none], Archaeological
Resources Technology)
P-07-001182 Resource Name - St Pauls
Catholic Church & Graveyard;
OHP PRN - 4806-0002-0000
7N;
OTIS Resource Number -
415637;
OHP Property Number - 012809
Building Historic HP16; HP40 1976 ([none], CCO Planning Dept) P-07-001183 Resource Name - 1906
Earthquake Refugee Camp
Building, Site Historic HP39; HP41 1975 ([none], San Pablo Historical Society)
P-07-001186 OHP Property Number - 12813;
OHP PRN - 4806-006-0000;
Resource Name - Andrata House
Building Historic HP02 1975 (Charles A. Forren, Contra
Costa Planning Department)
P-07-001190 Resource Name - Mello
Residence
Building Historic HP02 1975 (Charles A. Farren, CCO
Planning Dept.)
P-07-001192 Resource Name - Old Rectory;
OHP Property Number - 012819;
012812;
Other - 1901 Church Lane, 1841
Pullman Street;
OHP PRN - 4806-0014-0000
[property # 012819] [1875-1930s];
OHP PRN - 4806-0012-0000
[property # 012819] [1979-
present];
OHP PRN - 4806-0005-0000
[property # 012812] [1930s-1979];
OHP PRN - DOE-07-97-0011-
0000;
OHP PRN - HUD950522F;
OTIS Resource Number - 415647
Building Historic HP16 1975 (Charles A. Farren, Contra
Costa Planning Department);
1980 (Gerald S. Feagley, [none])
Primary No. Trinomial
Resource List
Other IDs Type Age Attribute codes Recorded by
NWIC File 22-0803 City of San Pablo
P-07-001320 Resource Name - Alvarado Park;
Other - Grand Canyon Park;
Other - CA-Cco-553H;
OHP Property Number - 073329;
OHP PRN - NPS-92000313-9999;
Other - Grand Canyon, Alvarado
Park;
OHP Property Number - 012791;
Voided - P-07-001167;
OHP PRN - 4802-0008-0000;
Voided - S-013893
District Historic AH02; AH03; AH11 1975 (Charles A. Farren, Contra Costa County Planning
Department);
1989 (Adrian Praetzellis, ASC)
P-07-002678 Resource Name - Circle S Mobile
Home Park
District Historic HP02; HP03; HP04 2004 (John Kelley, LSA Associates, Inc);
2015 (Michelle Cross, Meagan
O'Deegan, Stantec Consulting
Services, Inc.)
P-07-002679 Resource Name - Fisk Termite
Control Building
Building Historic HP06
P-07-002680 Resource Name - San Pablo
Redevelopment Agency
Warehouse
Building Historic HP08
2004 (John Kelley, LSA Associates,
Inc);
2015 (Michelle Cross, Meaga
O'Deegan, Stantec Consulting
Services, Inc.)
2004 (John Kelley, LSA Associates,
Inc);
2015 (Michelle Cross, Meagan
O'Deegan, Stantec Consulting
Services, Inc.)
P-07-002681 Resource Name - Chattleton
Housing District
Building,
District
Historic HP02 2004 (John Kelley, LSA Associates);
2015 (Michelle Cross, Meagan
O'Deegan, Stantec Consulting
Services, Inc.)
P-07-002753 Resource Name - Col. Hunter
Hall USAR Center;
Other - San Pablo USAR Center,
Facility ID no. CA 070
Building Historic HP34 2006 ([none], PAR Environmental
Services, Inc.)
P-07-004534 Resource Name - Lower San
Pablo Creek Archaeological
District;
OHP PRN - COE 840214A;
OHP Z-number - CCO-Z00002
District Prehistoric,
Protohistoric
AP02; AP09; AP15 1978 (Peter M. Banks, California
Archaeological Consultants, Inc.)
P-07-004598 Resource Name - Map Reference
#16;
Other - 1175 Joel Court
Building Historic HP02 2007 (Cheryl Brookshear, Damany
Fisher, JRP Historical Consulting,
LLC.)
Primary No. Trinomial
Resource List
Other IDs Type Age Attribute codes Recorded by
NWIC File 22-0803 City of San Pablo
P-07-004599 Resource Name - Map Reference
#17;
Other - 1180 Joel Court
Building Historic HP02 2007 (Cheryl Brookshear, Damany
Fisher, JRP Historical Consulting,
LLC.)
P-07-004600 Resource Name - Map Reference
#12;
Other - 1424 Humboldt Avenue
Building Historic HP02 2007 (Cheryl Brookshear, Damany
Fisher, JRP Historical Consultig,
LLC.)
P-07-004601 Other - Map Reference #11;
Resource Name - 3024 Avon Lane
Building Historic HP02; HP04 2007 (Bryan Larson, JRP Historical Consulting)
P-07-004602 Other - Map Reference #10;
Resource Name - 3030 Avon Lane
Building Historic HP02; HP04 2007 (Bryan Larson, JRP Historical Consulting)
P-07-004603 Other - Map Reference #9;
Resource Name - 3036 Avon Lane
Building Historic HP02; HP04 2007 (Bryan Larson, JRP Historical Consulting)
P-07-004604 Other - Map Reference #8;
Resource Name - 3040 Avon Lane
Building Historic HP02; HP04 2007 (Bryan Larson, JRP Historical Consulting)
P-07-004605 Other - Map Reference #7;
Resource Name - 3058 Judith
Court
Building Historic HP02 2007 (Cheryl Brookshear, Damany
Fisher, JRP Historical Consulting)
P-07-004606 Other - Map Reference #6;
Resource Name - 3066 Judith
Court
Building Historic HP02 2007 (Cheryl Brookshear, Damany
Fisher, JRP Historical Consulting)
P-07-004607 Other - Map Reference #5;
Resource Name - 3072 Judith
Court
Building Historic HP02 2008 (Bryan Larson, JRP Historical Consulting)
P-07-004608 Other - Map Reference #4;
Resource Name - 3144
Rollingwood Drive
Building Historic HP02 2008 (Bryan Larson, JRP Historical Consulting)
P-07-004609 Other - Map Reference #3;
Resource Name - 3152
Rollingwood Drive
Building Historic HP02 2007 (Cheryl Brookshear, Damany
Fisher, JRP Historical Consulting)
P-07-004610 Other - Map Reference #2;
Resource Name - 3160
Rollingwood Drive
Building Historic HP02 2007 (Cheryl Brookshear, Damany
Fisher, JRP Historical Consulting)
P-07-004611 Other - Map Reference #1;
Resource Name - 3168
Rollingwood Drive
Building Historic HP02 2007 (Cheryl Brookshear, Damany
Fisher, JRP Historical Consulting)
P-07-004612 Resource Name - Map Reference
#13;
Other - 5286-5290 Riverside
Avenue
Building Historic HP02; HP03 2007 (Cheryl Brookshear, Damany Fisher, JRP Historical Consulting)
Primary No. Trinomial
Resource List
Other IDs Type Age Attribute codes Recorded by
NWIC File 22-0803 City of San Pablo
P-07-004613 Resource Name - Map Reference
#14;
Other - 5296-5300 Riverside
Avenue
Building Historic HP02; HP03 2007 (Cheryl Brookshear, Damany Fisher, JRP Historical Consulting)
P-07-004614 Resource Name - Map Reference
#15;
Other - Riverside School;
Other - Riverside Elementary
School
Building Historic HP15 2008 (Bryan Larson, JRP Historical Consulting, LLC.)
P-07-004615 Resource Name - Doctors
Medical Center;
Other - Brookside Hospital
Building Historic HP41 2012 (Dana E. Supernowicz,
Historic Resource Associates)
P-07-004817 Resource Name - 2023 Vale
Road;
Other - Bldgs A and B, 2023 Vale
Road, San Pablo, CA
Building Historic HP06 2018 (Stacy Kozakavich,
WSA/PaleoWest)
OHP BERD dated September 23, 2022
Primary # OTIS ID Name St # St Name City Evaluation Info Circa 07‐002539 568353
3200 11TH ST SAN PABLO 6Y, 01/14/2002, DOE‐
07‐02‐0003‐0000 | 6Y,
01/14/2002,
HUD020110N
1949
550562
3409 11TH ST SAN PABLO 6Y, 01/23/2004, DOE‐
07‐04‐0010‐0000 | 6Y,
01/23/2004,
HUD031231D
1954
552397
1816 14TH ST SAN PABLO 6Y, 02/03/2004, DOE‐
07‐04‐0002‐0000 | 6Y,
02/03/2004,
HUD040130C
1924
556918
1614 15TH ST SAN PABLO 6Y, 07/03/2003, DOE‐
07‐03‐0028‐0000 | 6Y,
07/03/2003,
HUD030606A
1935
562614
1875 15TH ST SAN PABLO 6Y, 12/16/2002, DOE‐
07‐02‐0075‐0000 | 6Y,
12/16/2002,
HUD021203B
1952
528315
2759 15TH ST SAN PABLO 6Y, 01/08/2008,
HUD071213L
1951
07‐002534 568898
1740 16TH ST SAN PABLO 6Y, 12/31/2001, DOE‐
107‐01‐0037‐0000 | 6Y,
12/31/2001,
HUD011226J
1934
565374
1881 16TH ST SAN PABLO 6Y, 08/05/2002, DOE‐
07‐02‐0061‐0000 | 6Y,
08/05/2002,
HUD020729C
1953
OHP BERD dated September 23, 2022
Primary # OTIS ID Name St # St Name City Evaluation Info Circa 559164
1958 16TH ST SAN PABLO 6Y, 04/15/2003, DOE‐
07‐03‐0021‐0000 | 6Y,
04/15/2003,
HUD030411A
1946
566645
2721 18TH ST SAN PABLO 6Y, 06/06/2002, DOE‐
07‐02‐0017‐0000 | 6Y,
06/06/2002,
HUD020522K
536315
2972 19TH ST SAN PABLO 6Y, 03/21/2006,
HUD060317A
1953
561702
2024 20TH ST SAN PABLO 6Y, 02/03/2003, DOE‐
07‐03‐0014‐0000 | 6Y,
02/03/2003,
HUD030128J
1948
531651
2996 20TH ST SAN PABLO 6Y, 06/04/2007,
HUD070529E
1954
688927
2998 20th St San Pablo 6Y, 08/22/2019,
HUD_2019_0822_001
565368
2331 22ND ST SAN PABLO 6Y, 08/05/2002, DOE‐
07‐02‐0060‐0000 | 6Y,
08/05/2002,
HUD020729D
1929
07‐001181 415636 TEXIERA HOME
ALVARADO
SQUARE
SAN PABLO 7R, , 4806‐0001‐0000 1890
07‐001191 415646 BLUME HOUSE
ALVARADO
SQUARE
SAN PABLO 7R, , 4806‐0011‐0000 1905
689003 1300 Amador St, San Pablo 1300 Amador St San Pablo 6Y, 1 0/02/2008, FHWA080905C
526719
1524 AMADOR ST SAN PABLO 6Y, 04/25/2008,
HUD080421D
1948
OHP BERD dated September 23, 2022
Primary # OTIS ID Name St # St Name City Evaluation Info Circa
565828
2900 ARUNDEL WY SAN PABLO 6Y, 07/19/2002, DOE‐
07‐02‐0001‐0000 | 6Y,
07/19/2002,
HUD020705Q
1943
688995 3024 Avon Ln, San Pablo 3024 Avon Ln San Pablo 6Y, 10/02 /2008, FHWA080905C
688994 3030 Avon Ln, San Pablo 3030 Avon Ln San Pablo 6Y, 10/02 /2008, FHWA080905C
688992 3036 Avon Ln, San Pablo 3036 Avon Ln San Pablo 6Y, 10/02 /2008, FHWA080905C
688990 3040 Avon Ln, San Pablo, CA 3040 Avon Ln San Pablo 6Y, 1 0/02/2008, FHWA080905C
562376
2445 Bancroft Ln San Pablo 6Y, 01/06/2003, DOE‐
07‐02‐0006‐0000 | 6Y,
01/06/2003,
HUD021216M
1943
565977
6211 BAYVIEW AVE SAN PABLO 6Y, 07/10/2002, DOE‐
07‐02‐0024‐0000 | 6Y,
07/10/2002,
HUD020702D
1951
536110
150 BONNIE DR SAN PABLO 6Y, 05/03/2006,
HUD060428A
1954
531674
321 BONNIE DR SAN PABLO 6Y, 07/06/2007,
HUD070702S
1954
552396
1300 BROOKSIDE AVE SAN PAB LO 6Y, 02/03/2004, DOE‐
07‐04‐0001‐0000 | 6Y,
02/03/2004,
HUD040120B
1949
564131
1811 BUSH AVE SAN PABLO 6Y, 10/01/2002, DOE‐
07‐02‐0067‐0000 | 6Y,
10/01/2002,
HUD020926I
1940
OHP BERD dated September 23, 2022
Primary # OTIS ID Name St # St Name City Evaluation Info Circa
528047 COLONIAL HUNTER HALL USAR CENTER 2600 CASTRO RD SAN PABL O 6Y, 07/16/2007, USA070613A
1952
528048 ORGANIZATIONAL MANTAINANCE
SHOP
2600 CASTRO RD SAN PABLO 6Y, 07/16/2007,
USA070613A
1952
687276
16 Christine Ct San Pablo 6Y, 06/03/2010,
FHWA100506B
1953
687277
24 Christine CT San Pablo 6Y, 06/03/2010,
FHWA100506B
1953
687278
32 Christine Ct San Pablo 6Y, 06/03/2010,
FHWA100506B
1953
687279
48 Christine Ct San Pablo 6Y, 06/03/2010,
FHWA100506B
1953
687275
8 Christine Ct San Pablo 6Y, 06/03/2010,
FHWA100506B
1953
687280
102 Christine Dr San Pablo 6Y, 06/03/2010,
FHWA100506B
1953
687281
114 Christine Dr San Pablo 6Y, 06/03/2010,
FHWA100506B
1953
687282
126 Christine Dr San Pablo 6Y, 06/03/2010,
FHWA100506B
1953
687283
138 Christine Dr San Pablo 6Y, 06/03/2010,
FHWA100506B
516494
468 CHRISTINE DR SAN PABLO 6Y, 03/16/2011,
HUD110309F
1963
07‐001182 415637 ST PAULS CATHOLIC CHURCH &
GRAVEYARD, ST PAULS CAT
1825 Church Ln San Pablo 7N, , 4806‐0002‐0000 1863
514832 ST PAUL CHURCH 1845 CHURCH LN SAN PABLO 6Y, 02/25/2010, FCC091123E
1931
OHP BERD dated September 23, 2022
Primary # OTIS ID Name St # St Name City Evaluation Info Circa 07‐001192 415647 OLD RECTORY 1901 Church Ln San Pablo 2S2, 07/1 7/1997, DOE‐ 07‐97‐0011‐0000 | 2S2,
07/17/1997,
HUD950522F | 3S,
05/30/1980, 4806‐
0014‐0000 | 7N, , 4806‐
0012‐0000
1875
566644
1501 COLIN ST SAN PABLO 6Y, 06/06/2002, DOE‐
07‐02‐0016‐0000 | 6Y,
06/06/2002,
HUD020522E
550561
2009 CR 20 SAN PABLO 6Y, 01/23/2004, DOE‐
07‐04‐0009‐0000 | 6Y,
01/23/2004,
HUD031231B
1951
07‐001188 415643 STANLEY ALTER HOM E 2022 CR 20 SAN PABLO 7R, , 4806‐0008‐0000
07‐001187 415642 RUMRILL HELMS HOUS E 930 CR 20 SAN PABLO 3S, , 4806‐0007‐0000 1884 528369
1401 DOVER AVE SAN PABLO 6Y, 01/07/2008,
HUD071213K
1948
564130
2418 DOVER AVE SAN PABL O 6Y, 10/01/2002, DOE‐
07‐02‐0066‐0000 | 6Y,
10/01/2002,
HUD020926J
1943
07‐002538 568352
1514 EMERIC AVE SAN PABLO 6Y, 01/14/2002, DOE‐
07‐02‐0002‐0000 | 6Y,
01/14/2002,
HUD020110M
1941
OHP BERD dated September 23, 2022
Primary # OTIS ID Name St # St Name City Evaluation Info Circa
559165
1807 EMERIC AVE SAN PABLO 6Y, 04/15/2003, DOE‐
07‐03‐0022‐0000 | 6Y,
04/15/2003,
HUD030411B
1935
561886
2201 EMERIC AVE SAN PABLO 6Y, 01/27/2003, DOE‐
07‐03‐0013‐0000 | 6Y,
01/27/2003,
HUD030115A
1930
510218
2322 GALWAY RD SAN PABLO 6Y, 04/25/2012,
HUD120413D
1959
688997 1424 Humboldt Ave, San Pabl o 1424 Humboldt Ave San Pablo 6Y, 10/02/2008, FHWA080905C
516287
179 JENNIFER DR SAN PABLO 6Y, 04/25/2011,
HUD110419E
1946
562377
1108 JOHN AVE SAN PABLO 6Y, 01/06/2003, DOE‐
07‐03‐0007‐0000 | 6Y,
01/06/2003,
HUD021210B
1942
688988 3058 Judith Court, San Pabl o 3058 Judith Ct San Pablo 6Y , 10/02/2008, FHWA080905C
688987 3066 Judith Court, San Pabl o 3066 Judith Ct San Pablo 6Y , 10/02/2008, FHWA080905C
688985 3072 Judith Court, San Pabl o 3072 Judith Ct San Pablo 6Y , 10/02/2008, FHWA080905C
679355
1217 Karen Rd San Pablo 6Y, 01/30/2013,
HUD_2013_0129_001
1953
539486
1439 KAREN RD SAN PABLO 6Y, 12/30/2005,
HUD051216M
1954
526722
1110 LETTIA RD SAN PABLO 6Y, 04/25/2008,
HUD080410A
1953
OHP BERD dated September 23, 2022
Primary # OTIS ID Name St # St Name City Evaluation Info Circa
553505
240 LINDA DR SAN PABLO 6Y, 10/20/2003, DOE‐
07‐03‐0037‐0000 | 6Y,
10/20/2003,
HUD031003B
1953
519092
2664 MacArthur Ave SAN PABLO 6Y, 04/23/2010,
HUD100330G
1943
560173
1601 MANOR DR SAN PABLO 6Y, 03/07/2003, DOE‐
07‐03‐0017‐0000 | 6Y,
03/07/2003,
HUD030303E
1943
659403
1720 MANZANILLA
DR
SAN PABLO 6Y, 08/27/2015,
559166
1830 MASON ST SAN PABLO 6Y, 04/15/2003, DOE‐
07‐03‐0023‐0000 | 6Y,
04/15/2003,
HUD030411C
1951
07‐001184 415639 BOUQUET CHATEAU 5739 MCBRYDE AVE SAN PABLO 7R, , 4806‐0004‐0000 1911 519386
2639 MERRITT AVE SAN PABLO 6Y, 02/03/2010,
HUD100203A
1944
676771
1314 Miner Ave San Pablo 6Y, 06/05/2017,
HUD_2017_0519_005
1957
565978
24 MONTALVIN DR SAN PABLO 6Y, 07/10/2002, DOE‐
07‐02‐0025‐0000 | 6Y,
07/10/2002,
HUD020702I
1950
562375
2584 O'HARTE RD SAN PAB LO 6Y, 01/06/2003, DOE‐
07‐03‐0005‐0000 | 6Y,
01/06/2003,
HUD021216E | 6Y,
04/19/2019,
HUD_2019_0418_001
1952
OHP BERD dated September 23, 2022
Primary # OTIS ID Name St # St Name City Evaluation Info Circa
560172
2596 O'HARTE RD SAN PAB LO 6Y, 03/07/2003, DOE‐
07‐03‐0016‐0000 | 6Y,
03/07/2003,
HUD030303F
1952
536080
2634 OHARE AVE SAN PABLO 6Y, 04/05/2006,
HUD060403C
1943
518179
941 PALMER AVE SAN PABLO 6Y, 10/28/2010,
HUD101004H
1945
550251
1919 PINE AVE SAN PABLO 6Y, 02/23/2004, DOE‐
07‐04‐0013‐0000 | 6Y,
02/23/2004,
HUD040213B
1951
07‐001185 415640 PULLMAN STREET RE CTORY 1841 PULLMAN ST SAN PAB LO 3S, , 4806‐0005‐0000 1875 07‐001186 415641 ANDRATA HOUSE 918 RA NDY LN SAN PABLO 3S, , 480 6‐0006‐0000 1900 547130
2009 RD 20 SAN PABLO 6Y, 07/29/2004, DOE‐
07‐04‐0022‐0000 | 6Y,
07/29/2004,
HUD040712B
1950
679353
2432 Ridge Rd San Pablo 6Y, 01/09/2013,
HUD_2013_0108_001
1955
688999 5286‐5290 Riverside Ave, San Pablo 5286 Riverside Ave Sa n Pablo 6Y, 10/02/2008, FHWA080905C
689000 5296‐5300 Riverside Ave, San Pablo 5296 Riverside Ave Sa n Pablo 6Y, 10/02/2008, FHWA080905C
547423
2778 ROLLINGWOOD
DR
SAN PABLO 6Y, 07/12/2004, DOE‐
07‐04‐0020‐0000 | 6Y,
07/12/2004,
HUD040301C
1943
OHP BERD dated September 23, 2022
Primary # OTIS ID Name St # St Name City Evaluation Info Circa
562374
2797 ROLLINGWOOD
DR
SAN PABLO 6Y, 01/06/2003, DOE‐
07‐03‐0004‐0000 | 6Y,
01/06/2003,
HUD021216I
1943
533603
2807 ROLLINGWOOD
DR
SAN PABLO 6Y, 01/30/2007,
HUD070126A
1943
688984 3144 Rollingwood Dr, San Pablo 3144 Rollingwood Dr San P ablo 6Y, 10/02/2008, FHWA080905C
688982 3152 Rollingwood Drive, San Pablo 3152 Rollingwood Dr Sa n Pablo 6Y, 10/02/2008, FHWA080905C
688971 3157 Rollingwood Dr, San Pablo 3157 Rollingwood Dr San P ablo 6Y, 03/20/2014, FHWA080905C
1950
688981 3160 Rollingwood Dr, San Pablo 3160 Rollingwood Dr San P ablo 6Y, 10/02/2008, FHWA080905C
688979 3168 Rollingwood Dr, San Pablo 3168 Rollingwood Dr San P ablo 6Y, 10/02/2008, FHWA080905C
688972 3169 Rollingwood Dr, San Pablo 3169 Rollingwood Dr San P ablo 6Y, 03/20/2014, FHWA080905C
1950
688974 3177 Rollingwood Dr, San Pablo 3177 Rollingwood Dr San P ablo 6Y, 03/20/2014, FHWA080905C
1950
07‐001190 415645 MELLO RESIDENCE 14006 SAN PABLO AVE SAN PABLO 7R, , 4806‐0010‐0000 1875 697367
2400 San Pablo Dam
Rd
San Pablo 6Y, 03/01/2021,
FCC_2021_0126_001
1973
07‐002520 568710
1230 SANFORD AVE SAN PA BLO 6Y, 12/03/2001, DOE‐
07‐01‐0023‐0000 | 6Y,
12/03/2001,
HUD011127H
1950
537500
1914 SANFORD AVE SAN PABLO 6Y, 02/02/2006,
HUD060201DD
1940
514937 PG&E UTILITY TOWER
SHAMROCK DR SAN PABLO 6Y, 05/31/2010,
FCC100505C
1958
OHP BERD dated September 23, 2022
Primary # OTIS ID Name St # St Name City Evaluation Info Circa
534787
1748 SUTTER AVE SAN PABLO 6Y, 10/27/2006,
HUD061027B
1944
07‐002537 568351
1845 TRUMAN ST SAN PABL O 6Y, 01/14/2002, DOE‐
07‐02‐0001‐0000 | 6Y,
01/14/2002,
HUD020110L
1950
677749 Brookside Hospital, Doctors Medical
Center
2000 Vale Rd San Pablo 2S2, 10/21/2014,
FCC_2014_0919_002 |
6Y, 06/03/2014,
FCC_2014_0430_006
1951‐
1954
683479 Buildings A and B 2023 Vale Rd San Pablo 6Y, 10/31/2018, COE_2018_1001_001
1963
CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL RESOURCE STATUS CODES
(effective 5/1/2017)
1 Listed in the National Register (NR) or the California Register (CR) 1D Contributor to a multi-component resource like a district listed in the NR by the Keeper. Listed in the CR. 1S Individually listed in the NR by the Keeper. Listed in the CR. 1CD Contributor to a multi-component resource listed in the CR by the SHRC. 1CS Individually listed in the CR by the SHRC.
1CL State Historical Landmarks (CHL) numbered 770 and above, or SHR C reevaluated CHLs that also meet CR criteria. Listed in the CR. 1CP State Points of Historical Interest (CPHI) nominated after December 1997 and recommended for listing by the SHRC or SHRC reev aluated CPHIs that also meet CR criteria. Listed in the CR.
2 Determined eligible for listing in the National Register (NR) or the California Register (CR) 2B Determined eligible for the NR both individually and as a contributor to a NR eligible multi -component resource like a district in a federal regulatory process. Listed in the CR.
2D Contributor to a multi-component resource determined eligible for the NR by the Keeper. Listed in the CR. 2D2 Contributor to a multi-component resource determined eligible for NR by consensus through Section 106 process. Listed in the CR. 2D3 Contributor to a multi-component resource determined eligible for NR by Part I Tax Certification. Listed in the CR. 2D4 Contributor to a multi-component resource determined eligible for NR pursuant to Section 106 without review by SHPO. Li sted in the CR. 2S Individually determined eligible for NR by the Keeper. Listed in the CR. 2S2 Individually determined eligible for NR by consensus through Section 106 process. Listed in the CR. 2S3 Individually determined eligible for NR by Part I Tax Certification. Listed in the CR. 2S4 Individually determined eligible for NR pursuant to Section 106 without review by SHPO. Listed in the CR. 2CB Determined eligible for CR both individually and as a contributor to a CR eligible multi -component resource by the SHRC. 2CD Contributor to a multi-component resource determined eligible for CR by the SHRC. 2CS Individually determined eligible for CR by the SHRC.
3 Appears eligible for National Register (NR) or California Register (CR). 3B Appears eligible for NR both individually and as a contributor to a NR eligible multi -component resource like a district through survey evaluation. 3D Appears eligible for NR as a contributor to a NR eligible multi -component resource through survey evaluation. 3S Appears eligible for NR individually through survey evaluation.
3CB Appears eligible for CR both individually and as a contributor to a CR eligible multi -component resource through survey evaluation. 3CD Appears eligible for CR as a contributor t o a CR eligible multi-component resource through survey evaluation. 3CS Appears eligible for CR individually through survey evaluation.
4 Appears eligible for National Register (NR) or State Historical Landmark (CHL) through PRC§ 5024 4CM State agency owned resource added to Master List - appears to meet NR and/or CHL criterion.
5 Recognized as Historically Significant by Local Government 5B Locally significant both individually (listed, eligible, or appears eligible) and as contributor to a multi -component resource like a district that is locally listed, designated, determined eligible, or appears eligible through survey evaluation. 5D1 Contributor to a multi-component resource that is listed or designated locally. 5D2 Contributor to a multi-component resource that is eligible for local listing or designation. 5D3 Appears to be a contributor to a multi -component resource that appears eligible for local listing or designation. 5S1 Individually listed or designated locally.
5S2 Individually eligible for local listing or designation. 5S3 Appears to be individually eligible for local listing or designation through survey evaluation.
6 Not Eligible for Listing or Designation as specified
6C Determined ineligible for or removed from California Re gister (CR) by the SHRC. 6CD Determined ineligible for or removed from CR by the SHRC as a component of a CR listed multi -component resource. [Code to differentiate a resource that has more than one CR evaluation. Example, a resource that is on the CR as both contributor to a district and individually would still be on the CR if the district was removed/determined ineligible. This code would convey the change of a specific evaluation rather than th e resource’s CR status.] 6J State Historic Landmarks (CHL) or State Points of Historical Interest (SPHI) determined ineligible for or removed as a CHL or SPHI by the SHRC. 6L Determined ineligible for local listing or designation through local government review process; may warrant special consideration in local planning. 6T Determined ineligible for NR through Part I Tax Certification process. 6U Determined ineligible for NR pursuant to Section 106 without review by SHPO. 6W Removed from NR by the Keeper.
6X Determined ineligible for NR by the SHRC or the Keeper. 6Y Determined ineligible for NR by consensus through Section 106 process – Not evaluated for CR or local listing. 6Z Found ineligible for NR, CR or local designation through survey evaluation. 6WM Removed from Master List because no longer state owned. 6XM Removed from Master List because of historic feature loss or further evaluation. 6YM State agency owned resource determined ineligible for Master List.
7 Not Evaluated for National Register (NR) or California Register (CR) or Needs Re-evaluation 7E Treated as eligible for the purpose of OHP review.
7J Received by OHP for evaluation or action but not yet evaluated. 7K Submitted to OHP for action but not reevaluated.
7L State Historical Landmarks 1-769 – that do not meet CR criteria. 7M Submitted to OHP but not evaluated - referred to NPS. 7N Needs to be reevaluated - formerly coded as may become NR eligible with specific conditions. 7N1 Needs to be reevaluated (former status code 4) - may become NR eligible with restoration or other specific conditions. 7P State Point of Historical Interests that do not meet CR criteria. 7R Identified in Reconnaissance Level Survey or in an Area of Potential Effect (APE): Not evaluated. 7W Submitted to OHP for action – withdrawn or inactive.
Caltrans Bridge Inventory for San Pablo, Hope 2005
Bridge # RTE Name Fac City Year Blt Notes
28 0089 80 SAN PABLO DAM ROAD
OC
SAN PABLO DAM ROAD San Pablo 1956 Does not meet significance criteria. 28 0159 80 RIVERSIDE AVENUE POC INTERSTATE RTE 80 San Pablo 1996
28 0175 80 WILDCAT CREEK INTERSTATE RTE 80 San Pablo 1956 Culvert ‐ treated as categorically ineligible. 28C0057
SAN PABLO CREEK SAN PABLO AVE San Pablo 1926 Does not meet significance criteria. 28C0160
WILDCAT CREEK 23RD ST (SAN PABLO San Pablo 1940 Culvert ‐ treated as categorically ineligible. 28C0321
WILDCAT CREEK VALE RD San Pablo 1960
28C0322
WILDCAT CREEK CHURCH LANE San Pablo 1973
28C0323
SAN PABLO CREEK CHURCH LANE San Pablo 1955 Does not meet significance criteria. 28C0324
WILDCAT CREEK 13TH ST. San Pablo 0 Culvert ‐ treated as categorically ineligible. 28C0325
SAN PABLO CREEK RUMRILL BLVD San Pablo 1934 Does not meet significance criteria. 28C0326
SAN PABLO CREEK GIANT HWY San Pablo 1981
28C0327
RHEAM CREEK GIANT HWY San Pablo 1935 Culvert ‐ treated as categorically ineligible.
Appendix C
Supporting Materials for Tribal
Cultural Resources
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
December 6, 2022
Elizabeth Tyler
City of San Pablo
Via Email to: [email protected]
Re: Native American Consultation, Pursuant to Senate Bill 18 (SB18), Government Codes §65352.3 and §65352.4, as well as Assembly Bill 52 (AB52), Public Resources Codes §21080.1, §21080.3.1 and §21080.3.2, General Plan and Housing Element Update Project, Contra Costa County
Dear Ms. Tyler:
Attached is a consultation list of tribes with traditional lands or cultural places located within the boundaries of the above referenced counties or projects.
Government Codes §65352.3 and §65352.4 require local governments to consult with California Native American tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for the purpose of avoiding, protecting, and/or mitigating impacts to cultural places when creating or amending General Plans, Specific Plans and Community Plans.
Public Resources Codes §21080.3.1 and §21080.3.2 requires public agencies to consult with California Native American tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for the purpose of avoiding, protecting, and/or mitigating impacts to tribal cultural resources as defined, for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) projects.
The law does not preclude local governments and agencies from initiating consultation with the tribes that are culturally and traditionally affiliated within your jurisdiction. The NAHC believes that this is the best practice to ensure that tribes are consulted commensurate with the intent of the law.
Best practice for the AB52 process and in accordance with Public Resources Code §21080.3.1(d), is to do the following:
Within 14 days of determining that an application for a project is complete or a decision by a public agency to undertake a project, the lead agency shall provide formal notification to the designated contact of, or a tribal representative of, traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American tribes that have requested notice, which shall be accomplished by means of at least one written notification that includes a brief description of the proposed project and its location, the lead agency contact information, and a notification that the California Native American tribe has 30 days to request consultation pursuant to this section.
The NAHC also recommends, but does not require that lead agencies include in their notification letters, information regarding any cultural resources assessment that has been completed on the area of potential affect (APE), such as:
CHAIRPERSON
Laura Miranda
Luiseño
VICE CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash
SECRETARY
Sara Dutschke
Miwok
COMMISSIONER
Isaac Bojorquez
Ohlone-Costanoan
COMMISSIONER
Buffy McQuillen
Yokayo Pomo, Yuki,
Nomlaki
COMMISSIONER
Wayne Nelson
Luiseño
COMMISSIONER
Stanley Rodriguez
Kumeyaay
COMMISSIONER
[Vacant]
COMMISSIONER
[Vacant]
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Raymond C.
Hitchcock
Miwok/Nisenan
NAHC HEADQUARTERS
1550 Harbor Boulevard
Suite 100
West Sacramento,
California 95691
(916) 373-3710
[email protected]
NAHC.ca.gov
1. The results of any record search that may have been conducted at an Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), including, but not limited to:
• A listing of any and all known cultural resources have already been recorded on or adjacent to the APE, such as known archaeological sites;
• Copies of any and all cultural resource records and study reports that may have been provided by the Information Center as part of the records search response; • Whether the records search indicates a low, moderate or high probability that unrecorded cultural resources are located in the APE; and
• If a survey is recommended by the Information Center to determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present.
2. The results of any archaeological inventory survey that was conducted, including:
• Any report that may contain site forms, site significance, and suggested mitigation measures.
All information regarding site locations, Native American human remains, and associated funerary objects should be in a separate confidential addendum, and not be made available for public disclosure in accordance with Government Code Section 6254.10.
3. The result of the Sacred Lands File (SFL) check conducted through the Native American Heritage Commission was positive. Please contact the tribes on the attached list for more information.
4. Any ethnographic studies conducted for any area including all or part of the potential APE; and
5. Any geotechnical reports regarding all or part of the potential APE.
Lead agencies should be aware that records maintained by the NAHC and CHRIS is not exhaustive, and a negative response to these searches does not preclude the existence of a tribal cultural resource. A tribe may be the only source of information regarding the existence of a tribal cultural resource.
This information will aid tribes in determining whether to request formal consultation. In the event, that they do, having the information beforehand well help to facilitate the consultation process.
If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify the NAHC. With your assistance we can assure that our consultation list remains current.
If you have any questions, please contact me at my email address:
Sincerely,
Cody Campagne
Cultural Resources Analyst
Attachment
Amah MutsunTribal Band of
Mission San Juan Bautista
Irene Zwierlein, Chairperson
3030
Soda Bay Road
Lakeport, CA,
95453
Phone: (
650
)
851
-
7489
Fax: (
650
)
332-1526
[email protected]
Costanoan
Guidiville Indian Rancheria
Donald Duncan, Chairperson
P.O. Box
339
Talmage, CA,
95481
Phone: (
707
)
462
-
3682
Fax: (
707
)
462-9183
[email protected]
Pomo
Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of
Costanoan
Kanyon Sayers-Roods, MLD
Contact
1615
Pearson Court
San Jose, CA,
95122
Phone: (
408
)
673
-
0626
[email protected]
Costanoan
Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of
Costanoan
Ann Marie Sayers, Chairperson
P.O. Box
28 Hollister, CA,
95024
Phone: (
831
)
637
-
4238
[email protected]
Costanoan
Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe
of the SF Bay Area
Monica Arellano, Vice
Chairwoman
20885
Redwood Road, Suite
232
Castro Valley, CA,
94546
Phone: (
408
)
205
-
9714
[email protected]
Costanoan
Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe
of the SF Bay Area
Charlene Nijmeh, Chairperson
20885
Redwood Road, Suite
232
Castro Valley, CA,
94546
Phone: (
408
)
464
-
2892
[email protected]
Costanoan
The Ohlone Indian Tribe
Andrew Galvan, Chairperson
P.O. Box
3388
Fremont, CA,
94539
Phone: (
510
)
882
-
0527
Fax: (
510
)
687-9393
[email protected]
Bay Miwok
Ohlone
Patwin
Plains Miwok
The Confederated Villages of
Lisjan
Corrina Gould, Chairperson
10926
Edes Avenue
Oakland, CA,
94603
Phone: (
510
)
575
-
8408
[email protected]
Bay Miwok
Ohlone
Delta Yokut
1 of 1
This list is current only as of the date of this document and is based on the information available to the Commission on the date it was produced. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5
of the Health and Safety Code, Section
5097.94
of the Public
Resources Code and Section
5097.98
of the Public Resources Code.
This list is applicable only for consultation with Native American tribes under Government Code Sections 65352.3
,
65352.4
et seq. and Public Resources Code
Sections
21080.3.1
for the proposed General Plan and Housing Element Update Project, Contra Costa County.
PROJ-2022-
007197
12/06/2022 10:52 AM
Native American Heritage Commission
Tribal Consultation List
Contra Costa County
12/6/2022
December 8, 2022 Monica Arellano 20885 Redwood Road, Suite 232 Castro Valley, CA 94546 Re: Native American and Tribal Consultation under SB 18 and AB 52 Dear Ms. Arellano, The City of San Pablo to Pablo is preparing a targeted update to its General Plan and Housing Element. The project also involves a new Corridor Plan for Rumrill Boulevard that will be incorporated into the General Plan to describe the community’s vision for the future of the areas and guide change over time. An important objective of the project is to stimulate housing construction and new jobs in the city to provide a greater variety of choices for people of all ages, abilities, and income levels. The project could result in the development of up to 1,623 new housing units, primarily on vacant and underused properties within the City's three designated Priority Development Areas, located along the commercial corridors of San Pablo Avenue, 23rd Street, and Rumrill Boulevard. No zoning map changes are needed to accommodate new development. This letter serves to invite consultation in accordance with California Government Code Sections 65352.3 – 65352.4 per Senate Bill 18 (SB 18). SB 18 requires local governments to conduct meaningful consultation with California Native American tribes prior to adopting an update to the General Plan, for the purpose of protecting, or mitigating impacts to, cultural places. To assist in your evaluation of the Project, the Town has requested a Sacred Lands File (SFL) check through the NAHC, the result of which was positive. City This letter also serves to initiate consultation pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52, Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014), to evaluate the Project’s potential impacts to tribal cultural resources as part of the Project’s environmental review under CEQA. To ensure compliance with AB 52 and Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1, we are requesting any information you may have of tribal cultural resources within the Planning Area boundaries and respectfully invite you to consult on and participate in the review process for this Project. Your input is important to the City’s planning process. Please advise the City in writing if you wish to initiate consultations with the City on the Project. Under the provisions of SB 18, you have 90 days from the date of this notice to advise the City if you are interested in further consultation on the Project. Under the provisions of AB 52, you have 30 days from the receipt of this notice to advise the City if you are interested in consultation as part of CEQA environmental review; however, given the statutory deadline for adoption of the Housing Element, we would appreciate a response at your earliest convenience. After your written request is received, we will contact you as soon as possible and not later than 30 calendar days after receipt to begin the consultation process. If the City does not receive a written request within 30 or 90 calendar days, we will conclude that the invitation to consult been declined. This notification does not limit the ability of the Tribe to submit information to the City or comment on the environmental review document.
December 8, 2022 Donald Duncan P.O. Box 339 Talmage, CA, 95481 Re: Native American and Tribal Consultation under SB 18 and AB 52 Dear Mr. Duncan, The City of San Pablo to Pablo is preparing a targeted update to its General Plan and Housing Element. The project also involves a new Corridor Plan for Rumrill Boulevard that will be incorporated into the General Plan to describe the community’s vision for the future of the areas and guide change over time. An important objective of the project is to stimulate housing construction and new jobs in the city to provide a greater variety of choices for people of all ages, abilities, and income levels. The project could result in the development of up to 1,623 new housing units, primarily on vacant and underused properties within the City's three designated Priority Development Areas, located along the commercial corridors of San Pablo Avenue, 23rd Street, and Rumrill Boulevard. No zoning map changes are needed to accommodate new development. This letter serves to invite consultation in accordance with California Government Code Sections 65352.3 – 65352.4 per Senate Bill 18 (SB 18). SB 18 requires local governments to conduct meaningful consultation with California Native American tribes prior to adopting an update to the General Plan, for the purpose of protecting, or mitigating impacts to, cultural places. To assist in your evaluation of the Project, the Town has requested a Sacred Lands File (SFL) check through the NAHC, the result of which was positive. City This letter also serves to initiate consultation pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52, Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014), to evaluate the Project’s potential impacts to tribal cultural resources as part of the Project’s environmental review under CEQA. To ensure compliance with AB 52 and Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1, we are requesting any information you may have of tribal cultural resources within the Planning Area boundaries and respectfully invite you to consult on and participate in the review process for this Project. Your input is important to the City’s planning process. Please advise the City in writing if you wish to initiate consultations with the City on the Project. Under the provisions of SB 18, you have 90 days from the date of this notice to advise the City if you are interested in further consultation on the Project. Under the provisions of AB 52, you have 30 days from the receipt of this notice to advise the City if you are interested in consultation as part of CEQA environmental review; however, given the statutory deadline for adoption of the Housing Element, we would appreciate a response at your earliest convenience. After your written request is received, we will contact you as soon as possible and not later than 30 calendar days after receipt to begin the consultation process. If the City does not receive a written request within 30 or 90 calendar days, we will conclude that the invitation to consult been declined. This notification does not limit the ability of the Tribe to submit information to the City or comment on the environmental review document.
December 8, 2022 Andrew Galvan, Chairperson P.O. Box 3388 Fremont, CA, 94539 Re: Native American and Tribal Consultation under SB 18 and AB 52 Dear Mr. Galvan, The City of San Pablo to Pablo is preparing a targeted update to its General Plan and Housing Element. The project also involves a new Corridor Plan for Rumrill Boulevard that will be incorporated into the General Plan to describe the community’s vision for the future of the areas and guide change over time. An important objective of the project is to stimulate housing construction and new jobs in the city to provide a greater variety of choices for people of all ages, abilities, and income levels. The project could result in the development of up to 1,623 new housing units, primarily on vacant and underused properties within the City's three designated Priority Development Areas, located along the commercial corridors of San Pablo Avenue, 23rd Street, and Rumrill Boulevard. No zoning map changes are needed to accommodate new development. This letter serves to invite consultation in accordance with California Government Code Sections 65352.3 – 65352.4 per Senate Bill 18 (SB 18). SB 18 requires local governments to conduct meaningful consultation with California Native American tribes prior to adopting an update to the General Plan, for the purpose of protecting, or mitigating impacts to, cultural places. To assist in your evaluation of the Project, the Town has requested a Sacred Lands File (SFL) check through the NAHC, the result of which was positive. City This letter also serves to initiate consultation pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52, Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014), to evaluate the Project’s potential impacts to tribal cultural resources as part of the Project’s environmental review under CEQA. To ensure compliance with AB 52 and Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1, we are requesting any information you may have of tribal cultural resources within the Planning Area boundaries and respectfully invite you to consult on and participate in the review process for this Project. Your input is important to the City’s planning process. Please advise the City in writing if you wish to initiate consultations with the City on the Project. Under the provisions of SB 18, you have 90 days from the date of this notice to advise the City if you are interested in further consultation on the Project. Under the provisions of AB 52, you have 30 days from the receipt of this notice to advise the City if you are interested in consultation as part of CEQA environmental review; however, given the statutory deadline for adoption of the Housing Element, we would appreciate a response at your earliest convenience. After your written request is received, we will contact you as soon as possible and not later than 30 calendar days after receipt to begin the consultation process. If the City does not receive a written request within 30 or 90 calendar days, we will conclude that the invitation to consult been declined. This notification does not limit the ability of the Tribe to submit information to the City or comment on the environmental review document.
December 8, 2022 Corrina Gould 10926 Edes Avenue Oakland, CA, 94603 Re: Native American and Tribal Consultation under SB 18 and AB 52 Dear Ms. Gould, The City of San Pablo to Pablo is preparing a targeted update to its General Plan and Housing Element. The project also involves a new Corridor Plan for Rumrill Boulevard that will be incorporated into the General Plan to describe the community’s vision for the future of the areas and guide change over time. An important objective of the project is to stimulate housing construction and new jobs in the city to provide a greater variety of choices for people of all ages, abilities, and income levels. The project could result in the development of up to 1,623 new housing units, primarily on vacant and underused properties within the City's three designated Priority Development Areas, located along the commercial corridors of San Pablo Avenue, 23rd Street, and Rumrill Boulevard. No zoning map changes are needed to accommodate new development. This letter serves to invite consultation in accordance with California Government Code Sections 65352.3 – 65352.4 per Senate Bill 18 (SB 18). SB 18 requires local governments to conduct meaningful consultation with California Native American tribes prior to adopting an update to the General Plan, for the purpose of protecting, or mitigating impacts to, cultural places. To assist in your evaluation of the Project, the Town has requested a Sacred Lands File (SFL) check through the NAHC, the result of which was positive. City This letter also serves to initiate consultation pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52, Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014), to evaluate the Project’s potential impacts to tribal cultural resources as part of the Project’s environmental review under CEQA. To ensure compliance with AB 52 and Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1, we are requesting any information you may have of tribal cultural resources within the Planning Area boundaries and respectfully invite you to consult on and participate in the review process for this Project. Your input is important to the City’s planning process. Please advise the City in writing if you wish to initiate consultations with the City on the Project. Under the provisions of SB 18, you have 90 days from the date of this notice to advise the City if you are interested in further consultation on the Project. Under the provisions of AB 52, you have 30 days from the receipt of this notice to advise the City if you are interested in consultation as part of CEQA environmental review; however, given the statutory deadline for adoption of the Housing Element, we would appreciate a response at your earliest convenience. After your written request is received, we will contact you as soon as possible and not later than 30 calendar days after receipt to begin the consultation process. If the City does not receive a written request within 30 or 90 calendar days, we will conclude that the invitation to consult been declined. This notification does not limit the ability of the Tribe to submit information to the City or comment on the environmental review document.
December 8, 2022 Charlene Nijmeh 20885 Redwood Road, Suite 232 Castro Valley, CA, 94546 Re: Native American and Tribal Consultation under SB 18 and AB 52 Dear Ms. Nijmeh, The City of San Pablo to Pablo is preparing a targeted update to its General Plan and Housing Element. The project also involves a new Corridor Plan for Rumrill Boulevard that will be incorporated into the General Plan to describe the community’s vision for the future of the areas and guide change over time. An important objective of the project is to stimulate housing construction and new jobs in the city to provide a greater variety of choices for people of all ages, abilities, and income levels. The project could result in the development of up to 1,623 new housing units, primarily on vacant and underused properties within the City's three designated Priority Development Areas, located along the commercial corridors of San Pablo Avenue, 23rd Street, and Rumrill Boulevard. No zoning map changes are needed to accommodate new development. This letter serves to invite consultation in accordance with California Government Code Sections 65352.3 – 65352.4 per Senate Bill 18 (SB 18). SB 18 requires local governments to conduct meaningful consultation with California Native American tribes prior to adopting an update to the General Plan, for the purpose of protecting, or mitigating impacts to, cultural places. To assist in your evaluation of the Project, the Town has requested a Sacred Lands File (SFL) check through the NAHC, the result of which was positive. City This letter also serves to initiate consultation pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52, Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014), to evaluate the Project’s potential impacts to tribal cultural resources as part of the Project’s environmental review under CEQA. To ensure compliance with AB 52 and Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1, we are requesting any information you may have of tribal cultural resources within the Planning Area boundaries and respectfully invite you to consult on and participate in the review process for this Project. Your input is important to the City’s planning process. Please advise the City in writing if you wish to initiate consultations with the City on the Project. Under the provisions of SB 18, you have 90 days from the date of this notice to advise the City if you are interested in further consultation on the Project. Under the provisions of AB 52, you have 30 days from the receipt of this notice to advise the City if you are interested in consultation as part of CEQA environmental review; however, given the statutory deadline for adoption of the Housing Element, we would appreciate a response at your earliest convenience. After your written request is received, we will contact you as soon as possible and not later than 30 calendar days after receipt to begin the consultation process. If the City does not receive a written request within 30 or 90 calendar days, we will conclude that the invitation to consult been declined. This notification does not limit the ability of the Tribe to submit information to the City or comment on the environmental review document.
December 8, 2022 Kanyon Sayers-Roods 1615 Pearson Court San Jose, CA, 95122 Re: Native American and Tribal Consultation under SB 18 and AB 52 Dear Ms. Sayers-Roods, The City of San Pablo to Pablo is preparing a targeted update to its General Plan and Housing Element. The project also involves a new Corridor Plan for Rumrill Boulevard that will be incorporated into the General Plan to describe the community’s vision for the future of the areas and guide change over time. An important objective of the project is to stimulate housing construction and new jobs in the city to provide a greater variety of choices for people of all ages, abilities, and income levels. The project could result in the development of up to 1,623 new housing units, primarily on vacant and underused properties within the City's three designated Priority Development Areas, located along the commercial corridors of San Pablo Avenue, 23rd Street, and Rumrill Boulevard. No zoning map changes are needed to accommodate new development. This letter serves to invite consultation in accordance with California Government Code Sections 65352.3 – 65352.4 per Senate Bill 18 (SB 18). SB 18 requires local governments to conduct meaningful consultation with California Native American tribes prior to adopting an update to the General Plan, for the purpose of protecting, or mitigating impacts to, cultural places. To assist in your evaluation of the Project, the Town has requested a Sacred Lands File (SFL) check through the NAHC, the result of which was positive. City This letter also serves to initiate consultation pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52, Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014), to evaluate the Project’s potential impacts to tribal cultural resources as part of the Project’s environmental review under CEQA. To ensure compliance with AB 52 and Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1, we are requesting any information you may have of tribal cultural resources within the Planning Area boundaries and respectfully invite you to consult on and participate in the review process for this Project. Your input is important to the City’s planning process. Please advise the City in writing if you wish to initiate consultations with the City on the Project. Under the provisions of SB 18, you have 90 days from the date of this notice to advise the City if you are interested in further consultation on the Project. Under the provisions of AB 52, you have 30 days from the receipt of this notice to advise the City if you are interested in consultation as part of CEQA environmental review; however, given the statutory deadline for adoption of the Housing Element, we would appreciate a response at your earliest convenience. After your written request is received, we will contact you as soon as possible and not later than 30 calendar days after receipt to begin the consultation process. If the City does not receive a written request within 30 or 90 calendar days, we will conclude that the invitation to consult been declined. This notification does not limit the ability of the Tribe to submit information to the City or comment on the environmental review document.
December 8, 2022 Ann Marie Sayers P.O. Box 28 Hollister, CA, 95024 Re: Native American and Tribal Consultation under SB 18 and AB 52 Dear Ms. Sayers, The City of San Pablo to Pablo is preparing a targeted update to its General Plan and Housing Element. The project also involves a new Corridor Plan for Rumrill Boulevard that will be incorporated into the General Plan to describe the community’s vision for the future of the areas and guide change over time. An important objective of the project is to stimulate housing construction and new jobs in the city to provide a greater variety of choices for people of all ages, abilities, and income levels. The project could result in the development of up to 1,623 new housing units, primarily on vacant and underused properties within the City's three designated Priority Development Areas, located along the commercial corridors of San Pablo Avenue, 23rd Street, and Rumrill Boulevard. No zoning map changes are needed to accommodate new development. This letter serves to invite consultation in accordance with California Government Code Sections 65352.3 – 65352.4 per Senate Bill 18 (SB 18). SB 18 requires local governments to conduct meaningful consultation with California Native American tribes prior to adopting an update to the General Plan, for the purpose of protecting, or mitigating impacts to, cultural places. To assist in your evaluation of the Project, the Town has requested a Sacred Lands File (SFL) check through the NAHC, the result of which was positive. City This letter also serves to initiate consultation pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52, Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014), to evaluate the Project’s potential impacts to tribal cultural resources as part of the Project’s environmental review under CEQA. To ensure compliance with AB 52 and Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1, we are requesting any information you may have of tribal cultural resources within the Planning Area boundaries and respectfully invite you to consult on and participate in the review process for this Project. Your input is important to the City’s planning process. Please advise the City in writing if you wish to initiate consultations with the City on the Project. Under the provisions of SB 18, you have 90 days from the date of this notice to advise the City if you are interested in further consultation on the Project. Under the provisions of AB 52, you have 30 days from the receipt of this notice to advise the City if you are interested in consultation as part of CEQA environmental review; however, given the statutory deadline for adoption of the Housing Element, we would appreciate a response at your earliest convenience. After your written request is received, we will contact you as soon as possible and not later than 30 calendar days after receipt to begin the consultation process. If the City does not receive a written request within 30 or 90 calendar days, we will conclude that the invitation to consult been declined. This notification does not limit the ability of the Tribe to submit information to the City or comment on the environmental review document.
December 8, 2022 Irene Zwierlein 3030 Soda Bay Road Lakeport, CA, 95453 Re: Native American and Tribal Consultation under SB 18 and AB 52 Dear Ms. Zweirlein, The City of San Pablo to Pablo is preparing a targeted update to its General Plan and Housing Element. The project also involves a new Corridor Plan for Rumrill Boulevard that will be incorporated into the General Plan to describe the community’s vision for the future of the areas and guide change over time. An important objective of the project is to stimulate housing construction and new jobs in the city to provide a greater variety of choices for people of all ages, abilities, and income levels. The project could result in the development of up to 1,623 new housing units, primarily on vacant and underused properties within the City's three designated Priority Development Areas, located along the commercial corridors of San Pablo Avenue, 23rd Street, and Rumrill Boulevard. No zoning map changes are needed to accommodate new development. This letter serves to invite consultation in accordance with California Government Code Sections 65352.3 – 65352.4 per Senate Bill 18 (SB 18). SB 18 requires local governments to conduct meaningful consultation with California Native American tribes prior to adopting an update to the General Plan, for the purpose of protecting, or mitigating impacts to, cultural places. To assist in your evaluation of the Project, the Town has requested a Sacred Lands File (SFL) check through the NAHC, the result of which was positive. City This letter also serves to initiate consultation pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52, Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014), to evaluate the Project’s potential impacts to tribal cultural resources as part of the Project’s environmental review under CEQA. To ensure compliance with AB 52 and Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1, we are requesting any information you may have of tribal cultural resources within the Planning Area boundaries and respectfully invite you to consult on and participate in the review process for this Project. Your input is important to the City’s planning process. Please advise the City in writing if you wish to initiate consultations with the City on the Project. Under the provisions of SB 18, you have 90 days from the date of this notice to advise the City if you are interested in further consultation on the Project. Under the provisions of AB 52, you have 30 days from the receipt of this notice to advise the City if you are interested in consultation as part of CEQA environmental review; however, given the statutory deadline for adoption of the Housing Element, we would appreciate a response at your earliest convenience. After your written request is received, we will contact you as soon as possible and not later than 30 calendar days after receipt to begin the consultation process. If the City does not receive a written request within 30 or 90 calendar days, we will conclude that the invitation to consult been declined. This notification does not limit the ability of the Tribe to submit information to the City or comment on the environmental review document.
December x, 2022 Monica Arellano, 20885 Redwood Road, Suite 232 Castro Valley, CA, 94546 Re: Native American and Tribal Consultation under SB 18 and AB 52 Dear Ms. Arellano, The City of San Pablo to Pablo is preparing a targeted update to its General Plan and Housing Element. The project also involves a new Corridor Plan for Rumrill Boulevard that will be incorporated into the General Plan to describe the community’s vision for the future of the areas and guide change over time. An important objective of the project is to stimulate housing construction and new jobs in the city to provide a greater variety of choices for people of all ages, abilities, and income levels. The project could result in the development of up to 1,623 new housing units, primarily on vacant and underused properties within the City's three designated Priority Development Areas, located along the commercial corridors of San Pablo Avenue, 23rd Street, and Rumrill Boulevard. No zoning map changes are needed to accommodate new development. This letter serves to invite consultation in accordance with California Government Code Sections 65352.3 – 65352.4 per Senate Bill 18 (SB 18). SB 18 requires local governments to conduct meaningful consultation with California Native American tribes prior to adopting an update to the General Plan, for the purpose of protecting, or mitigating impacts to, cultural places. To assist in your evaluation of the Project, the Town has requested a Sacred Lands File (SFL) check through the NAHC, the result of which was positive. City This letter also serves to initiate consultation pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52, Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014), to evaluate the Project’s potential impacts to tribal cultural resources as part of the Project’s environmental review under CEQA. To ensure compliance with AB 52 and Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1, we are requesting any information you may have of tribal cultural resources within the Planning Area boundaries and respectfully invite you to consult on and participate in the review process for this Project. Your input is important to the City’s planning process. Please advise the City in writing if you wish to initiate consultations with the City on the Project. Under the provisions of SB 18, you have 90 days from the date of this notice to advise the City if you are interested in further consultation on the Project. Under the provisions of AB 52, you have 30 days from the receipt of this notice to advise the City if you are interested in consultation as part of CEQA environmental review; however, given the statutory deadline for adoption of the Housing Element, we would appreciate a response at your earliest convenience. After your written request is received, we will contact you as soon as possible and not later than 30 calendar days after receipt to begin the consultation process. If the City does not receive a written request within 30 or 90 calendar days, we will conclude that the invitation to consult been declined. This notification does not limit the ability of the Tribe to submit information to the City or comment on the environmental review document.
Kindest Regards, Elizabeth “Libby” Tyler Community Development Director City of San Pablo Tel. 510-215-3036 [email protected] Attachments: • Figure 1 - Planning Area Map • Figure 2 - USGS 7.5’ Quadrangle Map Appendix D
Noise Data
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
66 Franklin Street, Suite 300
Oakland, California 94607
510-834-4455
w w w. r in co n co nsu ltan ts. co m
April 26, 2025
Project No: 20-09554
Andrew Hill, MUP
Principal
Dyett & Bhatia
4001 Howe Street
Oakland, California 94611
Via email: [email protected]
Subject: Noise Assessment for the Rumrill Corridor Plan, San Pablo, California Dear Mr. Hill:
Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) is presenting this Noise Assessment for the proposed Rumrill Corridor Plan (“plan”) in San Pablo, California. Rincon understands that the study will be used to support the CEQA findings in an addendum to the San Pablo General Plan 2030 EIR . Attachment A contains noise fundamentals and common definitions.
Project Description
The Rumrill Corridor Plan serves as a blueprint for the revitalization of the Rumrill Corridor Priority Development Area (PDA) in San Pablo, the southern portion of Rumrill Boulevard between Brookside Drive and Costa Avenue. A predominantly young Hispanic neighborhood, the area is home to the Rumrill Sports Park, multifamily apartments, a mobile home park, and several small locally -owned businesses across various sectors such as food and restaurant services, personal businesses, and small-scale manufacturin g amongst other uses. Building on this profile and extensive community feedback, the Plan envisions the area as a highly livable corridor and a destination for “food and fun”, with a projected growth of 408 new housing units and 369 new jobs by 2035. It incorporates new land use designations and other policies that promote mixed density and mixed use infill development along the Corridor. This would result in a wider variety of housing choices for people of all ages and incomes, stimulate economic developme nt and job creation, create new recreational opportunities, improve environmental conditions, and establish the Rumrill Corridor as a new “Gateway to San Pablo”. Additionally, the Plan provides a comprehensive set of anti -displacement and parking strategies to supplement the evolution of the Rumrill Corridor in the future.
Environmental Setting
The predominant source of noise in the plan area is motor vehicles. Motor vehicle noise is characterized by a high number of individual events that can create a sustained noise level in proximity to noise-sensitive uses. Roadways with the highest traffic v olumes and speeds produce the highest noise levels. The roadway in the plan area with the highest traffic volumes and, thus, the highest noise levels is Rumrill Boulevard. Ambient noise level measurements were conducted in San Pablo by Rincon on Wednesday, May 31, 2023. As part of the ambient noise survey, a 15-minute noise measurement was conducted between 4:40 and 4:55 p.m. on the east side of Rumrill Boulevard, midway between California Avenue and Regina Avenue, approximately 20 feet from vehicle traffic. The results of noise monitoring indicate that noise levels along Rumrill Boulevard are in the range of 67 dBA Leq and 85 dBA Lmax.
Dyett & Bhatia
Noise Assessment for the Rumrill Corridor Plan
2 Impact Analysis
Construction
The 2030 General Plan EIR (City of San Pablo 2011) analyzed noise impacts under Section 3.9, Noise.
The 2030 General Plan EIR found that noise generated by construction activity could expose noise - sensitive receptors to temporary noise. This impact was determined to be less than significant if development under the proposed General Plan complies with General Plan policies and with limitations on construction activity in the City’s Municipal Code which specifically prohibits construction operations between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. unless there is an emergency.
Noise from individual construction projects facilitated by the project would temporarily increase noise levels at nearby noise-sensitive receivers. Since at this stage of planning, project-level details are not available for future projects that would be c arried out under the plan, it is not possible to determine exact noise levels or time periods for construction of such projects, or construction noise at adjacent properties. Nevertheless, the City would require construction contractors to implement constr uction noise reduction measures to prevent exceedance of the significance thresholds. Therefore, implementation of the plan would not result in new or substantially more significant impacts than those identified in the 2030 General Plan EIR.
Operation
Implementation of the project would allow additional buildout, which would generate new vehicle trips that could incrementally increase the exposure of land uses along roadways to operational traffic noise. Traffic data provided by Kittelson & Associates indicates that the 2022 average daily traffic (ADT) along the Rumrill Boulevard corridor was 16,080. Based on the VMT assessment for the plan (Kittleson & Associates 2025), the plan would increase VMT citywide by 6 percent. Conservatively assuming that all new vehicle trips would occur on Rumrill Boulevard, this would result in a traffic volume of approximately 17,045 ADT , and an increase of approximately 0.3 dBA DNL noise level, which would not exceed the most stringent traffic noise threshold of 1.5 dBA DNL for ambient noise environments of 65 dBA DNL and higher. Therefore, implementation of the plan would not result in new or substantially more significant impacts than those identified in the 2030 General Plan EIR.
* * *
This concludes our assessment of noise impacts from the proposed plan. Please do not hesitate to let us know if you wish to discuss this assessment.
Sincerely,
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
Josh Carman, INCE
Director of Technical Services
Attachments
Attachment 1 Fundamentals of Noise
w w w. r in co n co nsu ltan ts. co m
Attachment 1
Fundamentals of Noise
Noise is most often defined as unwanted sound; whether it is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or otherwise undesirable. Although sound can be easily measured, the perception of noise and the physical response to sound complicate the analysis of its impact on people. People judge the relative magnitude of sound sensation in subjective terms such as “noisiness” or “loudness.”
Noise Descriptors
The following are brief definitions of terminology used in this chapter:
▪ Sound. A disturbance created by a vibrating object, which, when transmitted by pressure waves through a medium such as air, is capable of being detected by a receiving mechanism, such as the human ear or a microphone.
▪ Noise. Sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or otherwise undesirable. ▪ Decibel (dB). A unitless measure of sound, expressed on a logarithmic scale and with respect to a defined reference sound pressure. The standard reference pressure is 20 micropascals (20 µPa). ▪ A-Weighted Decibel (dBA). An overall frequency -weighted sound level in decibels that approximates the frequency response of the human ear.
▪ Equivalent Continuous Noise Level (L eq); also called the Energy -Equivalent Noise Level. The value of an equivalent, steady sound level which, in a stated time period (often over an hour) and at a stated location, has the same A-weighted sound energy as the time-varying sound. Thus, the Leq metric is a single numerical value that represents the equivalent amount of variable sound energy received by a receptor over the specified duration.
▪ Statistical Sound Level (L n). The sound level that is exceeded “n” percent of time during a given sample period. For example, the L50 level is the statistical indicator of the time-varying noise signal that is exceeded 50 percent of the time (during each sampling period); that is, half of the sampling time, the changing noise levels are above this value and half of the time they are below it. This is called the “median sound level.” The L 10 level, likewise, is the value that is exceeded 10 percent of the time (i.e., near the maximum) and this is often known as the “intrusive sound level.” The L 90 is the sound level exceeded 90 percent of the time and is often considered the “effective background level” or “residual noise level.”
▪ Maximum Sound Level (Lmax). The highest RMS sound level measured during the measurement period.
▪ Root Mean Square Sound Level (RMS). The square root of the average of the square of the sound pressure over the measurement period.
▪ Day-Night Sound Level (Ldn or DNL). The energy-average of the A-weighted sound levels occurring during a 24 -hour period, with 10 dB added to the sound levels occurring during the period from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM.
▪ Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). The energy average of the A -weighted sound levels occurring during a 24 -hour period, with 5 dB added from 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM and 10 dB from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM. NOTE: For general community/environmental noise, CNEL and Ldn values rarely differ by more than 1 dB (with the CNEL being only slightly more restrictive – that is, higher than the L dn
value). As a matter of practice, Ldn and CNEL values are interchangeable and are treated as equivalent in this assessment.
▪ Sensitive Receptor. Noise- and vibration-sensitive receptors include land uses where quiet environments are necessary for enjoyment and public health and safety. Residences, schools, motels and hotels, libraries, religious institutions, hospitals, and nursing homes are examples.
Characteristics of Sound
When an object vibrates, it radiates part of its energy in the form of a pressure wave. Sound is that pressure wave transmitted through the air. Technically, airborne sound is a rapid fluctuation or oscillation of air pressure above and below atmospheric pressure that creates sound waves.
Sound can be described in terms of amplitude (loudness), frequency (pitch), or duration (time). Loudness or amplitude is measured in dB, frequency or pitch is measured in Hertz [Hz] or cycles per second, and duration or time variations is measured in seconds or minutes.
Amplitude
Unlike linear units such as inches or pounds, decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale. Because of the physical characteristics of noise transmission and perception, the relative loudness of sound does not closely match the actual amounts of sound energy. Table 1 presents the subjective effect of changes in sound pressure levels. Ambient sounds generally range from 30 dBA (very quiet) to 100 dBA (very loud). Changes of 1 to 3 dB are detectable under quiet, controlled conditions, and changes of less than 1 dB are usually not discernible (even under ideal conditions). A 3 dB change in noise levels is considered the minimum change that is detectable with human hearing in outside environments. A change of 5 dB is readily discernible to most people in an exterior environment, and a 10 dB change is perceived as a doubling (or halving) of the sound.
Table 1 Noise Perceptibility
Change in dB Noise Level
± 3 dB Barely perceptible increase
± 5 dB Readily perceptible increase
± 10 dB Twice or half as loud
± 20 dB Four times or one-quarter as loud
Source: California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2013, September. Technical Noise Supplement (“TeNS”).
Frequency
The human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies. Sound waves below 16 Hz are not heard at all, but are “felt” more as a vibration. Similarly, though people with extremely sensitive hearing can hear sounds as high as 20,000 Hz, most people cannot hear above 15,000 Hz. In all cases, hearing acuity falls off rapidly above about 10,000 Hz and below about 200 Hz.
When describing sound and its effect on a human population, A -weighted (dBA) sound levels are typically used to approximate the response of the human ear. The A-weighted noise level has been found to correlate well with people’s judgments of the “noisiness” of different sounds and has been used for many years as a measure of community and industrial noise. Although the A-weighted scale and the energy-equivalent metric are commonly used to quantify the range of human response to individual events or general community sound levels, the degree of annoyance or other response also depends on several other perceptibility factors, including:
▪ Ambient (background) sound level
▪ General nature of the existing conditions (e.g., quiet rural or busy urban) ▪ Difference between the magnitude of the sound event level and the ambient condition ▪ Duration of the sound event
▪ Number of event occurrences and their repetitiveness ▪ Time of day that the event occurs
Duration
Time variation in noise exposure is typically expressed in terms of a steady -state energy level equal to the energy content of the time varying period (called L eq), or alternately, as a statistical description of the sound level that is exceeded over some fraction of a given observation period. For example, the L 50 noise level represents the noise level that is exceeded 50 percent of the time; half the time the noise level exceeds this level and half the time the noise level is less than this level. This level is also representative of the level that is exceeded 30 minutes in an hour. Similarly, the L 2, L 8 and L 25 values represent the noise levels that are exceeded 2, 8, and 25 percent of the time or 1, 5, and 15 minutes per hour, respectively. These “n” values are typically used to demonstrate compliance for stationary noise sources with many cities’ noise ordinances.
Other values typically noted during a noise survey are the L min and Lmax. These values represent the minimum and maximum root-mean-square noise levels obtained over the measurement period, respectively.
Because community receptors are more sensitive to unwanted noise intrusion during the evening and at night, state law and many local jurisdictions use an adjusted 24 -hour noise descriptor called the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) or Day -Night Noise Level (L dn). The CNEL descriptor requires that an artificial increment (or “penalty”) of 5 dBA be added to the actual noise level for the hours from 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM and 10 dBA for the hours from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM. The L dn descriptor uses the same methodology except that there is no artificial increment added to the hours between 7:00 PM and 10:00 PM. Both descriptors give roughly the same 24 -hour level, with the CNEL being only slightly more restrictive (i.e., higher). The CNEL or L dn metrics are commonly applied to the assessment of roadway and airport -related noise sources.
Sound Propagation
Sound dissipates exponentially with distance from the noise source. This phenomenon is known as “spreading loss.” For a single-point source, sound levels decrease by approximately 6 dB for each doubling of distance from the source (conservatively neglecting ground attenuation effects, air absorption factors, and barrier shielding). For example, if a backhoe at 50 feet generates 84 dBA, at 100 feet the noise level would be 79 dBA, and at 200 feet it would be 73 dBA. This drop -off rate is appropriate for noise generated by on-site operations from stationary equipment or activity at a project site. If noise is produced by a line source, such as highway traffic, the sound decreases by 3 dB for each doubling of distance over a reflective (“hard site”) surface such as concrete or asphalt. Line source noise in a relatively flat environment with ground -level absorptive vegetation decreases by an additional 1.5 dB for each doubling of distance.
Psychological and Physiological Effects of Noise
Physical damage to human hearing begins at prolonged exposure to noise levels higher than 85 dBA.
Exposure to high noise levels affects the entire system, with prolonged noise exposure in excess of 75 dBA increasing body tensions, thereby affecting blood pressure and functions of the heart and the nervous system.
Extended periods of noise exposure above 90 dBA results in permanent cell damage, which is the main driver for employee hearing protection regulations in the workplace. For community environments, the ambient or background noise problem is widespread, through generally worse in urban areas than in outlying, less - developed areas. Elevated ambient noise levels can result in noise interference (e.g., speech interruption/masking, sleep disturbance, disturbance of concentration) and cause annoyance. Since most people do not routinely work with decibels or A-weighted sound levels, it is often difficult to appreciate what a given sound pressure level number means. To help relate noise level values to common experience, Table 2 shows typical noise levels from familiar sources.
Table 2 Typical Noise Levels
Common Outdoor Activities
Noise Level
(dBA) Common Indoor Activities
Onset of physical discomfort 120+
110 Rock Band (near amplification system)
Jet Flyover at 1,000 feet
100
Gas Lawn Mower at three feet
90 Diesel Truck at 50 feet, at 50 mph Food Blender at 3 feet 80 Garbage Disposal at 3 feet
Noisy Urban Area, Daytime
70 Vacuum Cleaner at 10 feet
Commercial Area Normal speech at 3 feet
Heavy Traffic at 300 feet 60
Large Business Office
Quiet Urban Daytime 50 Dishwasher Next Room
Quiet Urban Nighttime 40 Theater, Large Conference Room (background) Quiet Suburban Nighttime
30 Library
Quiet Rural Nighttime Bedroom at Night, Concert Hall (background) 20 Broadcast/Recording Studio
10 Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing 0 Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing
Source: California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2013, September. Technical Noise Supplement (“TeNS”).
Appendix E
Transportation Data
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Technical Memorandum
INTRODUCTION
Kittelson has prepared this DRAFT memorandum on VMT metrics for the buildout of the San Pablo General Plan. Previously, as part of the Housing Element EIR, Kittelson had presented a memorandum of VMT guidelines and thresholds for the City to consider. These were based on compliance with CCTA VMT Guidelines for project VMT impacts.
Similar to the Housing Element, Kittelson prepared forecasts for the General Plan Buildout condition to evaluate the general plan update for VMT. Now, the City as the lead agency, is planning to environmentally clear the general plan buildout as an addendum to the 2014 general plan update.
Under Senate Bill 743, local agencies may no longer rely on roadway/intersection delay and capacity- based analyses for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) purposes, but rather, agencies must analyze transportation impacts utilizing vehicle miles travelled (“VMT”), which measures the number of vehicle trips generated by a project and the average distance of travel to and from the project. This is a change from the prior method of analyzing transportation impacts, which measured levels of service (“LOS”) at intersections and roadway segments, graded from LOS A to LOS F. Travel delay as measured by LOS is no longer used as a metric to evaluate transportation impacts under CEQA but it’s often used to assess roadway capacity and conformance with desired LOS targets.
This memorandum describes the recommended approach to evaluate VMT impacts to clear the General Plan Update as an addendum under CEQA.
VMT METRICS AND THRESHOLDS
VMT is determined by multiplying the number of vehicular trips by the trip distance in miles. For example, one vehicle that travels ten miles in a day generates ten VMT. Normally VMT is expressed on a daily basis for a typical weekday. VMT can be expressed in several ways such as Total VMT or based on efficiency metrics such as VMT per capita (aka per resident), VMT per worker (a.k.a. per employee), and VMT per service population (service population is the sum of residents plus employees). VMT for land use projects are typically calculated and assessed on a per rate basis – per capita for residential projects or per employee for employment-generating projects. It should be noted that for the purposes of evaluating transportation impact under CEQA, only VMT from automobiles (not trucks) is to be considered. 155 Grand Avenue, Suite 505
Oakland, CA 94612
P 510.839.1742
April 28, 2025 Project# 25147
To: Andrew Hill, Principal
Dyett & Bhatia
1330 Broadway, Suite 604
Oakland, CA 94612
From: Damian Stefanakis and Fernando Sotelo, Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
CC: Karen Chavez, Dyett & Bhatia
RE: San Pablo General Plan Buildout Addendum EIR – VMT Assessment - DRAFT April 28, 2025 Page 2
San Pablo General Plan Buildout Addendum EIR – VMT Assessment - DRAFT VMT METRICS AND Thresholds Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
For land plans such as the San Pablo General Plan update, VMT is calculated for the full length of a given trip and are not truncated at jurisdiction boundaries. Additionally, these VMT values are for trips beginning or ending in the city (i.e., are associated with land uses within San Pablo). Trips passing through the city without stopping are not included in these VMT estimates, as the city has little or no control over such trips.
Although the absolute amount of VMT may be reported, transportation impact analysis is typically based on VMT expressed as an efficiency metric. VMT efficiency metrics, such as VMT per resident and VMT per employee, allow the VMT performance of different land use quantities to be compared. Such metrics provide a measure of travel efficiency and help depict whether people are traveling by vehicle more or less over time, across different areas, or across different planning scenarios. A per-capita or per-employee decline in VMT compared to a baseline condition indicates that the land use patterns and transportation network are operating more efficiently.
Usually, projects are assessed against the baseline condition. However, since the general plan is being cleared as an addendum, and since existing land uses are technically cleared for VMT under CEQA, the general plan will be assessed under the cumulative effect of the additional buildout land uses.
CCTA VMT Analysis Methodology Guidance
CCTA published an implementation guide1 to assist lead agencies in their CEQA VMT analysis consistent with new requirements of the CCTA Growth Management Program (GMP). The guidance is intended to apply to the VMT evaluation of land use projects under CEQA. Compliance with the requirements of the implementation guide is mandatory as part of fulfillment of local jurisdictions’ requirements under the CCTA GMP. Local jurisdictions may choose to apply methods and thresholds that are more stringent than what is outlined in the guidance. The following discussed applicable methodologies to evaluate project impacts and cumulative impacts.
Project Impacts
Since the general plan is not assessed as a project level impact, the CCTA recommended target reductions of 85% of baseline levels (which corresponds to 15% below baseline levels) will not apply for the Addendum.
Cumulative Impacts
Per CCTA Guidelines, Projects that are unable to mitigate their project-specific VMT impacts to less-than- significant levels require a Cumulative VMT analysis. The cumulative analysis consists of measuring the project’s effect on VMT of all roadways in the entire study area. To perform a cumulative VMT analysis, the CCTA future year model should be used for “without project” and “with project” conditions. The results would be extracted for the entire Bay Area region. A cumulative impact would occur if the total VMT under 2040 with project conditions would be higher compared to the total VMT under 2040 “without project” conditions. For cumulative impacts, the total VMT on all roadways will be used for the comparison without/with project. For San Pablo, a 2035 horizon was selected for the buildout.
1 Growth Management Program Implementation Documents Implementation Guide, Appendix F. CCTA, February 17, 2021.
April 28, 2025 Page 3
San Pablo General Plan Buildout Addendum EIR – VMT Assessment - DRAFT RECOMMENDED THRESHOLDS Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
RECOMMENDED THRESHOLDS
To evaluate impacts from the General Plan Update, the recommended metrics and thresholds for an addendum is the net difference in residential and employment VMT, described below:
• Residential: A significant impact would occur if the VMT for a residential project (VMT/capita) is substantially higher than the prior General Plan for the 2035 Countywide average. • Employment-Generating: A significant impact would occur if the VMT for a n employment project (VMT/employee) is substantially higher than the prior General Plan for the 2035 Countywide average.
T
he general plan update would result in a significant impact if proposed new residential, office, or retail land uses would in aggregate exceed respective thresholds for the entire County.
Analysis Scenarios
The following scenarios were analyzed using the Contra Costa Countywide travel demand model. Buildout of the existing (Adopted) General Plan was also reported in a separate scenario (as represented by the 2035 CCTA model) for cumulative comparison.
• 2035 Countywide No -Build. Represents existing S an Pablo Gene ral Plan and regional land use resulting from buildout as represented by the Contra Costa County General Plan. • 2035 Proposed General Plan Buildout. Projected 2035 land use resulting from the proposed San Pablo General Plan and added to the Contra Costa County General Plan.
IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Based on the recommended approach and established thresholds for a cumulative assessment under this Addendum, Table 1 summarizes the residential VMT results for San Pablo based on the cumulative 2035 County level no-build and 2035 County level buildout (of San Pablo). As shown in Table 1, with the San Pablo buildout, the VMT/Capita reduces from 16.9 to 16.7 VMT per capita.
Table 1: Residential VMT per Capita Summary
Year Scenario Area VMT/Capita Potential Impact?
2023 Existing Contra Costa County 17.3 -
2035 No-Project Contra Costa County 16.9 -
2035 With Project Contra Costa County 16.7 No
Source: CCTA Model, Kittelson & Assoc. Inc., 2025
Tabl
e 2 summarizes the employment VMT results for San Pablo based on the cumulative 2035 County level no-build and 2035 County level buildout plus San Pablo.
April 28, 2025 Page 4
San Pablo General Plan Buildout Addendum EIR – VMT Assessment - DRAFT FINDINGS Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Table 2: Employment VMT per job Summary
Year Scenario Area VMT/Employee Potential Impact?
2023 Existing Contra Costa County 14.9 -
2035 No-Project Contra Costa County 15.3 -
2035 With Project Contra Costa County 15.3 No
Source: CCTA Model, Kittelson & Assoc. Inc., 2025
A
s shown in Table 2, with the San Pablo buildout, the VMT/Employee remains at 15.3 at the county level.
FINDINGS
Based on the recommended approach and VMT analysis for the San Pablo General Plan Buildout Addendum, the results indicate no substantial increase in VMT/Capita or VMT/Employee. Therefore, the VMT results conclude that the buildout results in a less than significant (LTS) impact for VMT.
Appendix F
Buildout Projections for
the Rumrill Corridor Plan
MEMORANDUM To: Libby Tyler, Community Development Director, City of San Pablo From: Andrew Hill, Principal Re: Buildout Projections for the Rumrill Corridor Plan Date: December 30, 2024, revised January 6, 2025 Dear Libby: Developing buildout projections is a critical step in the process of plan development. Forecasting the growth in population, housing, and employment likely to result from implementation of the Rumrill Corridor Plan will inform key planning decisions and serve as the basis for environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Specifically, the buildout projections will be used to estimate future vehicle miles traveled, pollutant emissions, and utility demand that will in turn inform development of policies in the plan and quantify potential environmental impacts. This memo summarizes the methodology and assumptions used to develop buildout projections for the Rumrill Corridor Plan and General Plan Update Project. It also outlines the purpose and uses of buildout projections and presents the findings of the analysis. PARAMETERS FOR PROJECTIONS Map 1 shows the proposed General Plan land use designations for the Rumrill Corridor Plan Area. The development capacity of land within the planning area is determined by the maximum amount of development allowed under the land use and zoning regulations enacted by the City. Individual projects, however, are rarely approved at the upper limit of the permitted density or intensity range and thus cities are rarely if ever built out to full capacity. Market demand can also be a limiting factor - a city can zone for a large amount of retail space, but if underlying market demand factors do not support it, it will not get built. As such, buildout projections for the Rumrill Corridor Plan need to represent a reasonably foreseeable estimate of development potential, factoring in the capacity of land in the planning area and foreseeable market demand. Additionally, the projections must reflect certain legal requirements, including the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocations for the City, which define a minimum number of housing units that must be accommodated through local zoning during the 2023-31 planning period. The City's 2023-31 RHNA allocation is shown on Table 1. The City's adopted Housing Element plans for 354 new housing units in the Rumrill Corridor Plan Area by 2031, which represents a baseline for planning purposes.
Rumrill Blvd
Market Ave
Brookside Dr
Costa Ave
Sutter Ave
Pine Ave
Emeric Ave
California Ave
Sanford Ave
Sutro Ave
Chesley Ave
Post Ave
Folsom Ave
Mission Ave
Merritt Ave
Fillmore St
Marelia Ct
Regina Ave
Sanford Ave
19th St
Bush Ave
14th St
Dover Ave
John
Herbert
Davis Park
Wildcat Cre ek
UNION P ACIFIC RAILROAD
SOURCE: City of San Pablo, 2021; Contra Costa County GIS, 2021; Dyett & Bhatia, 2021 Mixed Use Center West
Commercial Mixed Use
Employment Mixed Use
Neighborhood Commercial
High Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
Planned Development
Parks/Recreation
Rumrill Boulevard PDA
City Limits
Railroads
J:\GISData\581_SanPablo_GP\GIS\Projects\PDA_Rumrill\General Plan Land Use.mxd 0 600 1,200300
FEET
Map Date:
1/7/2025
CITY OF SAN PABLO
CITY OF RICHMOND
UNINCORPORATED NORTH RICHMOND
CITY OF RICHMOND
BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RAILROAD
City of
Richmond
North
Richmond
City of
San Pablo
Rumrill
Sports
Complex
RUMRILL BOULEVARD CORRIDOR PLAN
Use
f
M
or
ap
R
1 u
:
m
P
r
r
i
o
ll
p
C
os
o
e
r
d
rid
G
o
e
r
neral Plan Land
- 3 -
Table 1: San Pablo Regional Housing Needs Assessment, 2023-2031 Income Level1 AMI Needed Units Percent of Needed Units Very-Low-Income 0-50% 173 23.2% Low-Income 51-80% 100 13.4% Moderate-Income 81-120% 132 17.7% Above-Moderate-Income >120% 341 45.7% Total 746 100.0% Source: HCD State Income Limits, 2021; City of San Pablo, 2022; Dyett & Bhatia, 2022 METHODOLOGY To develop a reasonably foreseeable projection of housing and job growth for the planning period, Dyett & Bhatia conducted a parcel-based analysis that considers development potential and market demand factors. The methodology for the projections is described below. Pipeline Projects There are three projects currently in the development pipeline that are likely to be developed prior to 2030. In June 2023, a 40-unit affordable housing project was approved at 1820 Rumrill, on the northeast corner of Rumrill Boulevard and Market Avenue. Additionally, Rudy's Refrigeration has acquired the This N That site at 1701 Rumrill Boulevard and the owner plans to redevelop the property with an assembly facility, warehouse and office space employing up to 30 people, while the City is currently processing an application for re-tenanting of the Renewed Hope Church site at 1327 Rumrill Boulevard to accommodate a credit union employing 10 people. Buildout projections for the Rumrill Corridor Plan will assume the development of these projects. Opportunity Sites Using parcel data from the Contra Costa County Assessor, vacant and underutilized parcels were identified as opportunity sites, or locations where change (i.e., new development or redevelopment) is most likely to occur during the planning horizon. Underutilized sites were determined on the basis of assessed value (AV) ratio and/or low floor area ratios (FAR), both indicators of redevelopment potential. Low AV ratio occurs on properties where the value of the land is worth more than the buildings and structures on it, giving the owner an incentive to redevelop with new uses that command higher rents or sale prices. Similarly, low FAR can also indicate redevelopment potential. For example, a large surface parking lot with more spaces than are needed to serve the businesses at a shopping center could be considered underutilized and could be redeveloped with other uses to serve community needs, such as housing that in turn would provide more customers for the stores and restaurants on the site. Parcels with low assessed value (AV) ratio, low floor area ratios (FAR), or both were considered underutilized and counted as opportunity sites. Properties under City ownership that may not be needed for municipal operations in the future were also taken into consideration. Using these criteria, a total of 24 opportunity sites (shown on Map 2) were Rumrill Blvd Market Ave
Brookside Dr
Costa Ave
Sutter Ave
Pine Ave
Emeric Ave
California Ave
Sanford Ave
Sutro Ave
Chesley Ave
Post Ave
Folsom Ave
Mission Ave
Merritt Ave
Fillmore St
Marelia Ct
Regina Ave
Sanford Ave
19th St
Bush Ave
14th St
Dover Ave
John
Herbert
Davis Park
Wildcat Cre ek
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD
SOURCE: City of San Pablo, 2021; Contra Costa County GIS, 2021; Dyett & Bhatia, 2021 Pipeline Projects
Opportunity Sites
Rumrill Boulevard PDA
City Limits
Railroads
Map 2: Pipeline Projects and
Opportunity Sites
J:\GISData\581_SanPablo_GP\GIS\Projects\PDA_Rumrill\Pipeline Projects and Housing Opportunity Sites.mxd 0 600 1,200300
FEET
Map Date:
1/7/2025
CITY OF SAN PABLO
CITY OF RICHMOND
U
N
IN
C
O
RPO
RATED
N
O
RTH
RIC
H
M
O
N
D
C
ITY O
F RIC
H
M
O
N
D
BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RAILROAD
City of
Richmond
North
Richmond
City of
San Pablo
Rumrill
Sports
Complex
RUMRILL BOULEVARD CORRIDOR PLAN
- 5 -
identified. The buildout calculations assume development on these parcels for the purpose of projecting a reasonably foreseeable estimate of development from the Rumrill Corridor Plan. Development Assumptions Recognizing that some opportunity sites are more "shovel ready" than others, the opportunity sites were ranked in a tiering system by their existing conditions (i.e., AV ratio, FAR, and vacant status) and assigned a development potential, or percentage of the parcel area that is likely to undergo development during the planning period. Table 2 summarizes the criteria and development potential assigned through the tiering system. These factors were applied to the total acreage of each parcel to determine potential new residential units and non-residential square footage, while accounting for some existing uses to remain. Table 2 - Development Assumptions Tier Criteria % Capacity Tier 1 Vacant 100 Tier 2 Low AV and Low FAR 65 Tier 3 Low AV or Low FAR or other indicator 50 Next, the number of residential units and non-residential square feet of new development was projected for each site, based on the density and development intensity ranges in the applicable General Plan land use designation, applying the assumptions shown in Table 2. Non-residential square footage was translated into job projections using typical employment density factors for various uses from a survey of development trends in California. BUILDOUT PROJECTIONS Projections for housing units and jobs on opportunity sites in the Rumrill Corridor Plan Area are summarized below. The assumptions and calculations are presented by proposed General Plan land use designation first, and the cumulative area-wide results are shown in Table 3 at the end of this memo. High Density Residential There are four opportunity sites in the High Density Residential (HDR) designation. Two of the sites are vacant and two are underutilized. Additionally, the three adjacent City owned sites in the Planned Development designation are assumed to develop with high density residential uses for the purpose of these buildout projections. The HDR designation permits multifamily housing development at up to 60 du/ac. Buildout projections assume residential development at 48 du/ac, which is consistent with other recently approved and constructed developments on other sites in San Pablo within this designation, based on a review of recent development conducted as part of the Housing Element update. Overall, buildout of these sites is projected to result in 141 net new housing units within the planning period.
- 6 -
Commercial Mixed Use There are eight opportunity sites in the Commercial Mixed Use (CMU) designation, including three vacant sites and five underutilized sites. Two of the vacant sites are adjacent and under common ownership. The Commercial Mixed Use permits commercial development at up to 1.5 FAR and residential development at up to 50 du/ac. Buildout projections assume development and redevelopment of opportunity sites in either a horizontal or vertical mixed use format. For the vacant sites, non-residential uses were assumed on up to 75 percent of the ground floor area and an employment density factor of 300 square feet per job was applied to derive projected jobs, as is typical for restaurant and retail uses. Residential density was assumed at 45 dwelling units per acre (du/ac), which is consistent with other recently approved and constructed developments on other sites in San Pablo within this designation, based on a review of recent development conducted as part of the Housing Element update. For the underutilized sites, factors from Table 2 were applied based on the tier of the site and an employment density factor of 300 square feet per job was applied to the resulting square footage to project jobs. Existing jobs (based on data obtained from Esri Business Analyst) were subtracted from the projected total to calculate net new jobs likely to result with buildout of the underutilized sites. Residential density was assumed at 45 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) and existing units that would be replaced were netted out from the resulting total. Overall, buildout of these sites is projected to result in 35 net new housing units and 107 net new jobs within the planning period. Employment Mixed Use The proposed Employment Mixed Use (EMU) designation is intended to foster a range of production, distribution, and repair-oriented businesses and provide jobs with good wages that don't require a college degree for local residents. Maximum permitted FAR is 0.6, and on sites over 0.25 acres, multiunit housing is permitted where adequate buffering and noise mitigation is provided. There are three opportunity sites in the EMU designation, all underutilized. Two of the sites are larger than 0.25 acres. Factors from Table 2 were applied based on the tier of the site and an employment density factor of 700 square feet per job was applied to the resulting square footage to project jobs. This employment density factor was established based on a review of sites with existing production, distribution, and repair-oriented businesses in the corridor, considering current building square footage and current number of employees. Existing jobs (based on data obtained from Esri Business Analyst) were subtracted from the projected total to calculate net new jobs likely to result with buildout of the underutilized sites. A residential density of 24 du/ac was applied to project housing units on the two larger sites, accounting for the fact that residential units would only be constructed on a portion of the sites. Overall, buildout of these sites is projected to result in 24 net new jobs and 9 new housing units within the planning period. Neighborhood Commercial There is one underutilized opportunity site in the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) designation. The NC designation permits retail, restaurant, and commercial recreational uses at up to 1.0 FAR. Residential use are not permitted in the NC designation. Assuming development of a neighborhood serving restaurant on the site, the applicable development
- 7 -
assumption factor from Table 2 was applied and an employment density factor of 300 square feet per job was applied to derive projected jobs. Overall, buildout of this site is projected to result in 16 net new jobs within the planning period. Mixed Use Center - West This proposed Mixed Use Center - West (MUC-W) designation applies to properties at the prominent intersection of Rumrill Boulevard and Market Avenue, permitting residential development at up to 60 du/ac (prior to application of any bonus density) and non-residential development at up to 2.5 FAR. There are five opportunity sites in the MUC-W designation, all underutilized. Two of the five sites, located at the northwest corner of the intersection, are adjacent and under common ownership and the existing uses are the Food Barn grocery store and related surface parking lot. With a total area of 2.6 acres, this property has a unique development potential within the Plan area. Accordingly, special consideration was given to these sites. Projections assume that the property would redevelop with a 44,000 square foot grocery store (equivalent to existing Food Barn square footage), a 10,000 square foot commercial kitchen, and multifamily residential development, which could be provided above the commercial development onsite or in standalone buildings. Residential buildout was assumed at 60 dwelling units per acre (du/ac), which is within the maximum base density permitted within this designation but less than 1820 Rumrill, which was approved at 80 du/ac with a density bonus. The following employment density factors were used to project jobs on this property: • For the new grocery store, 1,000 square feet per job, consistent with the employment density of other grocery stores in San Pablo, including FoodMaxx; • For the commercial kitchen, 120 square feet per job, consistent with the typical employment density of other commercial kitchens in the Bay Area; • For the restaurant and retail space, 300 square feet per job was applied to derive projected jobs, as is typical for restaurant and retail uses. On the other three underutilized sites, ground floor commercial space was assumed with 3 to 4 stories of residential above. An employment density factor of 300 square feet per job was applied to derive projected jobs, and residential density was assumed at 60 dwelling units per acre (du/ac), as on other sites in the MUC-W designation. Existing jobs were subtracted from the projected total to calculate net new jobs likely to result. Overall, buildout of MUC-W opportunity sites is projected to result in 183 net new housing units and 182 net new jobs within the planning period. SUMMARY Table 3 presents a summary of projected net new job and housing growth for the Rumrill Corridor Plan Area. For the purpose of comparison, prior projections from the City's 2023-31 Housing Element and the 2030 General Plan are provided on Table 4 for reference. Overall, buildout of the proposed Rumrill Corridor Plan would result in 408 new housing units and 369 new jobs over the planning period. This represents more housing than envisioned in the Housing Element for the area, given the decision to rezone City-owned parcels for high density residential uses. It also represents more employment growth for the area than
- 8 -
envisioned in the 2030 General Plan, given the proposed land use changes which are intended promote development with uses that create good jobs for local residents. Table 3 - Net New Projected Housing Units and Jobs in the Rumrill Corridor Plan Area Housing Units Jobs Pipeline 40 40 Mixed Use Center - West 183 182 High Density Residential 141 0 Commercial Mixed Use 35 107 Employment Mixed Use 9 24 Neighborhood Commercial 0 16 Total 408 369 Table 4 - Comparison of Projections for the Rumrill Corridor Plan Area Housing Units Jobs 2030 General Plan 89 209 2050 Plan Bay Area 22 194 2023-31 Housing Element 354 n/a Rumrill Corridor Plan 408 369 Appendix A: Business Establishments and Estimated Workers in Rumrill PDA
Name Address NAICSCategory Workers
Cerna’s Tires and Repair 1291 Rumrill Blvd 441320Auto Repair and Maintenance 3 Berto Auto Spa 1200 Rumrill Blvd 811192Auto Repair and Maintenance 8 Najar’s Custom Exhaust 1454 Rumrill Blvd 811121Auto Repair and Maintenance 3 Arciniega's Auto Repair 1503 Rumrill Blvd 811111Auto Repair and Maintenance 2 Pancho’s Auto Repair 1620 Rumrill Blvd 811111Auto Repair and Maintenance 2 Colima Auto Repair 1752 Rumrill Blvd 811111Auto Repair and Maintenance 3 Luis Autosound 1852 Rumrill Blvd 811118Auto Repair and Maintenance 1 CCS Auto Body 1868 Rumrill Blvd 811121Auto Repair and Maintenance 2 Caliber Collision 2031 Rumrill Blvd 811121Auto Repair and Maintenance 9 J&M Auto Repair 2145 Rumrill Blvd 811111Auto Repair and Maintenance 2 Total Auto Repair and Maintenance 35
Rubenstein Plumbing Supply 1157 Rumrill Blvd 423720Manufacturing/Wholesale 5 East Bay Brass Foundry Inc 1200 Chesley Ave 331110Manufacturing/Wholesale 13 Navarro Iron Works 1317 Rumrill Blvd 332323Manufacturing/Wholesale 4 Rudy's Commercial Refrigeration 1660 Rumrill Blvd 333415Manufacturing/Wholesale 10 Total Manufacturing/Wholesale 32
Bay Area Moving and Storage 2025 Rumrill Blvd #1 48411Personal/Business/Social Services3 Golden State Taxes and Notary 1835 Rumrill Blvd 541213Personal/Business/Social Services1 Lao Family 1865 Rumrill Blvd 624190Personal/Business/Social Services4 Lao Family 1968 Rumrill Blvd 624190Personal/Business/Social Servicesna C.M.B Mobile Welding Repair 1852 Rumrill Blvd 811310Personal/Business/Social Services1 Yvonne's 1524 Rumrill Blvd 811490Personal/Business/Social Services1 Miky's Wash House 1441 Rumrill Blvd 812310Personal/Business/Social Servicesna P.S. Friendly Cleaners 1817 Rumrill Blvd 812310Personal/Business/Social Services2 Five Star Cleaners 2145 Rumrill Blvd 812320Personal/Business/Social Services22 Tony’s Maintenance and Landscaping 1153 Rumrill Blvd #73 561730Personal/Business/Social Services1 Rossy’s Barber and Beauty 1732 Rumrill Blvd 812112Personal/Business/Social Services3 Las Camelinas Beauty Salon 1758 Rumrill Blvd 812112Personal/Business/Social Services1 Pham/ Lupitas Station Men 1829 Rumrill Blvd 812112Personal/Business/Social Services1 Lupitas’s Beauty Salon 1829 Rumrill Blvd 812112Personal/Business/Social Services3 Kathy Beauty Salon and Barber 2145 Rumrill Blvd 812112Personal/Business/Social Services1 Aloba Sf Inc 1732 Rumrill Blvd 517312Personal/Business/Social Services1 Dolex Dolalr Express, Inc 1754 Rumrill BLvd 522390Personal/Business/Social Services1 AG Auto Registration Services 1526 Rumrill 561990Personal/Business/Social Services1 D.F. Boxing Club 1839 Rumrill Blvd 713940Personal/Business/Social Servicesna Total Personal/Business/Social Services 47
Iglesia Profetica Espiritu de dios 1732 Rumrill Blvd 813110Religious na Renewed Hope Church 1327 Rumrill 813110Religious na
Family Church of God in Christ 1452 Rumrill 813110Religious na Iglesia Evangelica Eben-Ezer 1472 Rumrill 813110Religious na Iglesia Cristiana Dios Con Nostotros 1830-1840 Rumrill 813110Religious na Total Religious na
continued on next page
Appendix A, continued
Note: BAE estimates. Detailed industry and employment data were not available for the Plan Area. BAE estimated the total employees at each business establishment using information from Esri Business Analyst and other public online sources. Sources: City of San Pablo; Esri Business Analyst; Dun & Bradstreet; BAE, 2022.
Name Address NAICSCategory Workers
R & R’s Café 1260 Rumrill Blvd 722511Restaurant/Food Services 11 Plaza Garibaldi 1 1537 Rumrill Blvd 722330Restaurant/Food Services 1 Los Compadres Taqueria 1742 Rumrill Blvd 722511Restaurant/Food Services 5 Restaurante Rosita 1762 Rumrill Blvd 722513Restaurant/Food Services 11 Los Grullenses food truck 1777 Rumrill Blvd 722511Restaurant/Food Services 2 Los Grullenses #2 1789 Rumrill Blvd 722511Restaurant/Food Services 2 Tortas Y Jugos Los Chilangos 1801 Rumrill Blvd 722511Restaurant/Food Services 8 Tacos El Amigo 1942 Rumrill Blvd 722513Restaurant/Food Services 1 Pollos Asados Don Rafa 1835 Rumrill Blvd 722511Restaurant/Food Services 5 Total Restaurant/Food Services 46
Carniceria La Esmeralda 1300 Market Ave 445210Retail Food 6 La Fina Meat Market 1160 Rumrill Blvd 445210Retail Food 2 Super Carniceria La Mejor 1634 Rumrill Blvd 445210Retail Food 2 Green Valley Foods 2025 Rumrill Blvd #3 44529Retail Food 1 Rumrill food and Liquor 1441 Rumrill Blvd 445310Retail Food 3 Farmers Market 1160 Rumrill Blvd 445110Retail Food 1
El Porvenir Produce 1537 Rumrill Blvd 445110Retail Food 3 Mi Ranchito Market #1 1634 Rumrill Blvd 445110Retail Food 3 Evergreen Market 1300 Market Ave 445110Retail Food 5
Luangnamtha Market 1865 Rumrill Blvd 445110Retail Food 2 Food Barn 1835 Rumrill Blvd 445120Retail Food 8
La Esperanza Express 1852 Rumrill Blvd 445120Retail Food 1 Total Retail Food 37
Top Gas 1522 Rumrill Blvd 447190Retail Other 3
Leon Western Wear 1835 Rumrill Blvd 448140Retail Other 1 Joyeria El Alacran 1537 Rumrill Blvd 448310Retail Other 1 Variedades Guadalajara 1777 Rumrill Blvd 452319Retail Other na This and That Building Supply 1701 Rumrill Blvd 453310Retail Other 3 Paulo’s Thrift store 1752 Rumrill Blvd 453310Retail Other 1 Lucky Energy House 1542 Rumrill Blvd 453220Retail Other 1 La Raza Party Supplies 1600 Rumrill BLvd 453220Retail Other 5 Spacetell LLC 1835 Rumrill Blvd 517312Retail Other 4
Angel Lopez 1835 Rumrill Blvd 45399Retail Other 1
Total Retail Other 20
Grand Total 217