For years, residents along Richmond Street have been told that proposed bike lanes and street changes are about safety, sustainability, and access.
The public record tells a different story.
When you read the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) grant applications tied to the El Cerrito Plaza Transit-Oriented Development (TOD), it becomes clear that Richmond Street was not chosen because it rose to the top of a neighborhood safety analysis. It was selected because it helped the City meet grant-scoring requirements.
Richmond Street wasn’t planned for.
It was planned through.
This Was a Grant Strategy—Not a Neighborhood Safety Plan
The AHSC program, administered through the Strategic Growth Council, awards tens of millions of dollars to projects that demonstrate reductions in vehicle miles traveled and carbon emissions. In that system, bicycle infrastructure is one of the most cost-effective ways to score points.
So the City assembled a package that fit the rubric.
In the Round 9 application materials, the City explicitly references a Class IV protected bikeway on Richmond Street as part of the sustainability strategy. The bike lane is not framed as a resident-driven improvement. It appears as a grant component—one element in a bundle designed to increase competitiveness.
This is not how organic transportation planning works. This is how grant-chasing works.
Bike Advocacy Was Elevated—Residents Were Not
The grant narrative repeatedly highlights partnerships with bicycle advocacy organizations, most notably with Bike East Bay, which is described as an essential partner.
El Cerrito’s internal champion of this approach is City Councilmember Rebecca Saltzman, a well-known bicycle advocate. Her alignment with regional bike advocacy groups is not incidental; it is embedded in the political and administrative structure that supported these changes.
What is missing from the record is equal weight given to the residents who live on Richmond Street—the people who lose parking, access, and neighborhood stability as a result of these decisions.
When the City describes “stakeholder coordination,” it is clear who counted as stakeholders—and who did not.
The Library Was the Prize—Richmond Street Was the Price
Here is the key fact residents should not overlook:
The proposed library is planned for Parcel C West, and by the City’s own admission, the formal application process for that structure has not yet begun.
Yet Richmond Street is being permanently altered now.
Why?
Because those changes help the City claim a multimodal, low-carbon development package that strengthens its case for state funding—funding needed to make an oversized, expensive “trophy” library appear viable on paper.
Richmond Street residents were asked to absorb the impacts so the City could improve its grant narrative for a project elsewhere.
That is not planning in the public interest. That is instrumentalizing a neighborhood to subsidize a political priority.
The City Manager Is Culpable—This Was Orchestrated
This outcome did not happen by accident, and it did not occur solely because a few councilmembers favor bike infrastructure.
The City Manager is culpable in this scheme because the City Manager:
- Directs the City’s grant strategy – especially in opting not to apply for them
- Oversees consultant work and narrative framing
- Coordinates interdepartmental alignment around scoring priorities
- Brings Council pre-packaged recommendations framed as the “only viable option”
That is not neutral administration. That is active orchestration.
When residents are told “the funding depends on it,” that is not a fact—it is a choice that leadership made and then presented as inevitable.
FACT BOX: What the Record Shows
What residents were told:
- Bike lanes improve safety and sustainability
- Changes reflect best practices and community input
- The project benefits everyone
What the applications show:
- Richmond Street bike infrastructure was used to score grant points
- Bike advocacy organizations were elevated as essential partners
- The library project drove the need for a grant-friendly package
What’s missing
- A transparent safety needs assessment for Richmond Street
- Meaningful resident-led decision-making
- Alternatives that did not sacrifice a single neighborhood
If a Project Requires Sacrificing a Neighborhood, It Isn’t Ready
El Cerrito residents are not anti-bike.
They are not anti-housing.
They are not anti-library.
But they are entitled to honesty.
If the City cannot pursue a library and TOD without using Richmond Street residents as collateral damage to meet grant requirements, then the project is not grounded in community priorities. It is grounded in scoring mechanics and political ambition.
And once streets are changed, neighborhoods do not get them back.
Call to Action: Demand Accountability
Residents should demand answers—now, not after the next grant cycle:
- Why was Richmond Street selected over other corridors?
- What data justified this choice?
- What alternatives were considered and rejected?
- Why is the City moving ahead when the library process has not formally begun?
- Who approved this tradeoff, and under what authority?
Contact City Leadership and Demand Transparency
City Manager
📧 citymanager@ci.el-cerrito.ca.us
Mayor Carolyn Wysinger
📧 cwysinger@ci.el-cerrito.ca.us
Mayor Pro Tem Gabe Quinto
📧 gquinto@ci.el-cerrito.ca.us
Councilmember Lisa Motoyama
📧 lmotoyama@ci.el-cerrito.ca.us
Councilmember Rebecca Saltzman
📧 rsaltzman@ci.el-cerrito.ca.us
Councilmember William Ktsanes
📧 wktsanes@ci.el-cerrito.ca.us
Final Thought: No More Blank Checks
El Cerrito is already being asked to vote on another tax in 2026.
After watching how Richmond Street was used—not protected, not prioritized, but spent—residents should be clear-eyed.
This City does not have a funding problem.
It has a leadership and trust problem.
And until City Hall stops treating neighborhoods as grant-application tools, the answer to another blank check should be no.
El Cerrito Committee for Responsible Government (ECCRG) 